[johnforbes]

So it had nothing to do with Trump "inciting" on Jan 6?

This story is from the pro-Left Washington Post, the lobbyist group of Bezos.

[Clownkicker]

Finally, you admit that Trump supporters staged the insurrection.

Now, as to Trump inciting the riot, he did. He has been working on it for months with his rhetoric.

He told them to stand by.

He told them not to be "weak".

He told them to fight.

He told them to march down to the Capitol and stop the Electoral College certification.

He wound them up with his rhetoric, lied to them about being there with them, and then set them loose.

The fact that the groups had planned their assault so that when the time came they would be ready to do Trump's bidding doesn't mean that Trump didn't send them out on that particular day. He did.

But that you have stopped insisting that it was BLM and Antifa that started the attack and now admit it was Trump supporters in militias and the paramilitary Oath Keepers that really got the violence going is a big step forward in your understanding of Trump's responsibility in this. They wouldn't have done a thing if they hadn't been told to "stand by" instead of "stand down". They wouldn't have done a thing if they didn't have Trump's instructions that day. Trump told them to stop the certification of the Electoral College. Trump continued to lie about the election being stolen.

johnforbes must be puzzled that in four hours of Congressional debate about accepting Electoral College votes, not a single Republican claimed there had been any fraud in any state. Not one. Just as Giuliani never made any claims of fraud in 62 court cases Trump lost. This is because there is no evidence of fraud, as Bill Barr told them.

johnforbes and Trump are the only people still claiming vote fraud in the election. And neither of them have anything to offer other than statistical oddities to support their frivolous claims.

But good to see you are finally putting blame where it belongs, johnny--with Trump supporters.

[johnforbes]

Come on, man.

At least 75 million Americans voted for Trump, and 5 key swing states violated their own election laws.

The most known example, PA, is really beyond rational dispute, and that is surely why the Sup Ct hastened to NOT take the TX equal protection case.

Equal protection was at the heart of Bush v Gore.

If Democrats are confident there was no election fraud, why have they not encouraged a full election audit?

It is because the statistical anomalies are fairly overpowering, such as Trump winning Ohio and Florida plus 95 of 100 bellwether counties.

[Clownkicker]

Come on, man.

At least 74 million Americans voted for Trump, but 81 million people voted for Biden, beating Trump by a margin of 7 million votes.

And the Republicans in all six key swing states don't actually allege any election fraud, even in court or in Congressional debates about the elections. The states have all agreed and certified that their elections were legal.

The most known example, PA, is really beyond rational dispute since the case was taken to the PA Supreme Court where they found the election to be legal, and that is surely why the Sup Ct hastened to NOT take the TX equal protection case.

Incidentally, an irrelevant and pointless factoid in this case is that equal protection was at the heart of Bush v Gore, but that has nothing to do with anything being discussed here.

If Republicans are so confident there was election fraud, why have they not done a full election audit when Republicans run five of the six state legislatures and most have Republican Secretaries of State?

It is because statistical anomalies in themselves are not proof of anything, they are just statistical anomalies, such as Trump winning Ohio and Florida plus 95 of 100 bellwether counties. Next election those 95 "bellwether counties" will not be bellwether counties any longer--so what? No statistical curiosity lasts forever. There is no evidence whatsoever of widespread fraud in the election, so Republicans know when they are beaten fair and square, as verified by USAG Barr, Kemp of CISA, all Republican Secretaries of State in the disputed states, Mitch McConnell and the majority of Congressional Republicans., and the U.S. Congress.

[johnforbes]

No, it is unknown whether Biden -- elderly, boring, unable to draw a crowd -- won many votes.

It seems to defy common sense, but of course so do Clown's posts.

[Clownkicker]

What defies common sense is that you are completely incapable of addressing anything I actually post, johnny.

Instead you try to distract from you intellectual impotence with more idiotic bullshit.

And since we know the number of Trump votes from exactly the same sources who gave us the Biden votes, if we don't know Biden's count, then we don't know Trump's either, dimwit.

You Republican clowns always forget the most obvious truths, that we know nothing more about Trump's votes than we know about Biden's. If you accept Trump's vote count, then you must accept Biden's vote count, you imbecile.

[johnforbes]

I do accept the obvious -- that senile corrupt Biden couldn't draw flies to his events.

Even in his farewell speech, Trump drew triple the viewers for Biden's inaugural.

[Clownkicker]

Yes, johnny, Biden won. We know.

You don't need to make posts to tell us what we already know.

[johnforbes]

I do accept the obvious -- that senile corrupt Biden couldn't draw flies to his events.

Even in his farewell speech, Trump drew triple the viewers for Biden's inaugural.

Sadly, Biden is now demanding an investigation of extreme groups in America, under which pretext he doubtless hopes to push the fallacious assumption that all Trump supporters are extremists.

[Clownkicker]

"I do accept the obvious -- that senile corrupt Biden couldn't draw flies to his events."-johnflubs

And he STILL beat Trump by 7 million votes. That should tell you something about just how revolting Trump is to Americans, johnny.


"Even in his farewell speech, Trump drew triple the viewers for Biden's inaugural."-johnflubs

Yes, people always stop and stare at a train wreck, johnny. It's human nature. What's your point?


"Sadly, Biden is now demanding an investigation of extreme groups in America,..."-johnfibs

"Sadly"? You think it's SAD that a President demands investigation of extreme groups in America? Why do you hate America, johnny?

If Biden wasn't looking into them he would be derelict in his sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution. If YOU don't want them looked into, then you are also abandoning your own oath you took upon entering the army. If you want to do that, then just admit it, but don't blame Biden for maintaining his devotion to this country that you lack.


"...under which pretext he doubtless hopes to push the fallacious assumption that all Trump supporters are extremists.

No one is trying to "push" the fallacious assumption that all Trump supporters are extremists. They are wisely exposing the irrefutable FACT that SOME Trump supporters as extremists. Even YOU admitted that when you started the thread about the Trump supporters who planned ahead for the riot at the Capitol. You blamed them yourself, and the Oath Keepers are admitted supporters of Trump. So why would you bitch about ANYONE looking into them? Why don't you want America protected from extremists, johnny?

[divermouse]

and here comes the sparkle pony patriot dust.


which is really fine ground treason, dressed up like a sparkle pony.
fine tuned soundbites to fool the foolable.

[johnforbes]

Biden's poll numbers show him as the weakest president ever.

And that is consistent with his halting speech, halting gait, inability to draw a crowd, and his almost half a century of gaffes and dumb comments.

So, other than mail voting and the fraud Jimmy Carter noted that brings, Biden NEEDED votes to be "found" in the dead of night in Phily and Atlanta and Detroit...

[Clownkicker]

"... Biden NEEDED votes to be "found" in the dead of night in Phily and Atlanta and Detroit..."-johnflubs

johnny, you're confused. It was Trump, not Biden, who called up Atlanta telling them they needed to miraculously "find" 11,780 votes.

As always, johnforbes thought it was fine that Trump asked them to do that. He saw nothing wrong with candidate Trump making such a call, but pretends it would be some sort of election fraud if Biden did it.

Which is it, johnny? Is it fine to tell a state to "find" votes or isn't it?

[johnforbes]

As usual, Clowntoker is dishonest.

What Trump actually said in that phone call was that he wanted to find enough votes to go ahead, as all politicians do.

There was nothing wrong with Trump's call, although there was much wrong with Biden's Ukraine quid pro quo.

Also, it bears repeating that there is much wrong with Clown's ideation.

[Clownkicker]

"As usual, His Lordship is dishonest."-johnfibs


What Trump actually said: "Look, all I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes..." (which means he wanted THEM to find 11,780 votes because they are the only people who could possibly do what Trump wanted.)

What I said: "It was Trump, not Biden, who called up Atlanta telling them they needed to miraculously "find" 11,780 votes."

What you said: "What Trump actually said in that phone call was that he wanted to find enough votes to go ahead,..." (which is the same as saying he wanted THEM to find 11,780 votes because they are the only people who could possibly do what Trump wanted.)

I reported what Trump actually said, that they needed to "find 11,780 votes" (because there's no one else could possibly do it.) Then you said I was being dishonest and proceeded to agree with what I had just said while pretending you disagreed with what I said.

Do you see why you are certifiably insane, johnny? If not, it's probably because you are certifiably insane.

It was Trump, not Biden, who desperately needed to find votes in Georgia, and his desperate phone call to Georgia is the proof of it.


"There was nothing wrong with Trump's call,..."-johnfoibles

Sure nothing at all wrong with it, other than the attempted election fraud he was soliciting, dummy.

[johnforbes]

Yes, Trump wanted enough votes to win.

But, of course, so did the Democrats, and so they used covid lockdowns to justify mail ballots, and all key swing states violated their own voting laws.

There was no bipartisan oversight of counting, Dominion software was used, and Dems stole the election.

[Clownkicker]

That's our johnfoibles... he doesn't like voting machines which have been used for decades because of the risk of fraud. He doesn't like mail-in ballots like Trump uses because of the the risk of fraud. And he doesn't like the ballots that are cast in person because he believes boxes and boxes of fraudulent ballots are pulled out from under tables and counted while nobody watches.

The question is, just what sort of ballots will johnforbes accept? None that we have in any state in the nation, that's for sure.

What voting system would johnforbes accept without his incessant partisan sore-loser whining and moaning?


Notice that he couldn't refute what I said about Trump soliciting election fraud from Georgia. That's because what I said was absolutely correct and he only pretends that Trump's phone call was just fine when he doesn't accept the word of ANYONE, Republican or Democrat, who runs elections in America (Republican Secretaries of State as in Georgia,) enforces laws in America (AG Barr,) or sits on the bench in America (Republican-appointed Supreme Court Justices.)

In other words, what johnforbes is advocating for is anarchy since he is unwilling to accept any government authority running his elections; not even those put in place by his own political party.

[johnforbes]

Jimmy Carter, in studying the Bush-Gore election, said that mail ballots were essentially invitations to fraud.

HR-1, which the Dems want, would mandate zero ID of voters, and thus allow massive future fraud akin to the 2020 fraud.

Dems want fraud and censorship because their main ideas -- race-baiting and socialism -- are horrible.

[Clownkicker]

See? johnfoibles loves to criticize the system when his side loses, but when his side wins using the same system he's got nothing to criticize about it at all. He actually defended the system when Trump won in 2016.

Again, dimwit, what system of balloting do you think is better than what we have?

Voting machines? Mail-in ballots like Trump uses? Why don't you answer?

[divermouse]

cause he has no fucking answers, only bovine treasonous ass sparkles.

[johnforbes]

Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, was asked to work with Baker to study elections, and they concluded that mail ballots were a terrible problem.

Senators Kobuchar and Warren, Democrats, said the same thing less than a year ago. So did the pro-Left NY Times.

HR-1, which the Dems want, would mandate zero ID of voters, and thus allow massive future fraud akin to the 2020 fraud.

[Clownkicker]

johnny, if you don't like the way Trump votes, just say so. Criticize HIM for it, not the rest of us.

Everyone still sees that you lack the balls to take a stand on what you pretend is such a critical problem.

Again, what sort of ballots would you accept if not the sort that were certified by Republicans?

[johnforbes]

Obviously there is a better method.

Real ID driving licenses are intended to, obviously, really identify the person.

In-person voting, with photo ID, is the proper way.

HR-1 shows that Democrats WANT more fake elections because they ALWAYS "find" the needed votes.

[Clownkicker]

...and in person voting will stop the Republican Secretaries of State from certifying alleged boxes of allegedly illegal ballots allegedly pulled out from under tables HOW? And it will make the certification of the count by Republican Secretaries of State more legitimate HOW?

You don't believe them now, so why would you believe them in the future?

You're claiming ballot fraud but offer no solution to all the hundreds of thousands of fake ballots that you say are supposedly brought into the count centers in vans or 'found' under tables or supposedly run through counting machines three times.

The point is, Republican Secretaries of State looked into all those allegations and you still don't believe them.

And why don't you believe them? Because you have any actual EVIDENCE of any fraud? No, you have no more evidence that AG Barr had. You don't believe them just because your guy lost and that's all.

You don't accept Congressional certification of the Electoral College vote and you don't accept that the spineless Republicans Trump appointed to the Supreme Court didn't rule for Trump. How do you think only in person voting that would exclude hundreds of thousands of American from voting (including Trump himself) would be any more acceptable to you when your guy STILL loses the next election? It wouldn't because you're just a whining, sour-grapes, excuse-making, poor loser.

[johnforbes]

Obviously, no new system will prevent what happened in GA or PA and the other areas where there were serious questions but the Secs of State certified anyhow.

There were 5 key swing states which did not conform to their own election laws. There were very serious statistical anomalies, problems with Dominion, and no bipartisan oversight of vote-counting which is REQUIRED.

But Clown is correct that no change would prevent a Sec of State from certifying when there exist many valid reasons not to certify, but instead to do a serious audit of the election.

Why does this matter? Because, as Biden said just a few months ago, American presidents are not dictators and we need consent of the governed.

American voters need to feel their votes really are counted. We need to have the same degree of precision in voting as we have when we access our bank account.

[divermouse]

the votes were counted. but you keep up the drama, leading stupid people into a frenzy of destruction and THEIR coming jail time. while you stand in a padded bra world of overpaid closet cubicle snarkers. you must have a beautiful life sitting up there watching stupid people do your treasons acts. laughing at stupid people you propelled for your paycheck, staring out the window to the right at the marriott. patriot my fucking ass.

[johnforbes]

Before being tempted to concur with Diver, or dissent from his remarks. it was necessary to assign my crack staffers the task of ascertaining what the heck he said.

If anything coherent may be gleaned from his remarks, I shall alert the media.

[Clownkicker]

"Jimmy Carter, in studying the Bush-Gore election, said that mail ballots were essentially invitations to fraud."-johnforbes

Amazing, johnforbes has just told us that Trump is willingly taking part in ballot fraud.


"Former president and Palm Beach resident Donald Trump is set to vote in local elections by mail after months of falsely claiming the civic process led to mass voter fraud in the 2020 election.

And according to the Palm Beach Post, it's his third time requesting a mail-in ballot as a Palm Beach County voter.

Trump requested a mail-in ballot a week after the deadline in Palm Beach County, according to the report, meaning that he will have until 7 p.m. local time on Tuesday to turn in his ballot and cast his vote in the Palm Beach municipal elections."-Business Insider 3/9/21


So Trump starts out his voting fraud by requesting an illegal ballot a week after the deadline. It figures.

But now Trump supporters support Trump using mail-in ballots. Not one of them has criticized him for intentionally participating in an allegedly fraudulent system. Now they believe mail-in ballots should be counted because it's Trump's vote at stake instead of some Democrat's vote.

[johnforbes]

Come on, man.

It is one thing for a specific voter to request a mail ballot, be confirmed as a valid voter, and then vote by mail.

It is entirely different to have tons of blank ballots sent out, which they were, and then returned, counted with no supervision by the GOP, and have no way to later verify signatures.

In PA, for example, there was NO LATER WAY TO GO BACK AND ASCERTAIN WHETHER ANY MAIL BALLOT SIGNATURES WERE VALID BECAUSE THE INNER AND OUTER ENVELOPES WERE SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER.

Any valid vote has some method of being checked.

The points I just made ARE NOT PARTISAN AT ALL.

[Clownkicker]

Come on, man.

Admitting that Trump is participating in what you and he claim is a fraudulent voting system is not a rebuttal to my claim that Trump is participating in what he says is a fraudulent voting system. Quite the opposite. You agreed with me that Trump is participating in a voting system he claims to this day is fraudulent, but you must still pretend you are disagreeing with me for some reason.

You once again make excuses for Trump and throw accusations of fraud at everyone who is not Trump. It's your standard johnforbes hypocrisy.

The fact is, when Trump's ballot is received to be counted, it's outer envelope will be separated from the inner envelope after the signature is checked, just like all the others, and there will be no way to go back and check to see if his signature is valid should there be an audit.

His ballot will have EVERY flaw that you claim the others have with a vote by mail system. His ballot request will be confirmed exactly as the others are confirmed. He didn't go downtown and show anyone his photo ID. His signature will not be able to be checked in an audit should there be one. But you still refuse to call him out for his hypocrisy of saying mail-in voting is fraudulent.

You say you love to point out Democrat hypocrisy. But you refuse to criticize Trump's hypocrisy.

You're such a hypocrite that you're even hypocritical about hypocrisy.

[johnforbes]

There are two simple things to understand:

If a valid voter REQUESTS a mail ballot for some good reason, and one ballot is sent out to that person, and his signature etc. checks out, that is fine.

But bulk mails out, as was done, are an invitation to fraud and it was Jimmy Carter's commission, in the aftermath of the Bush-Gore debacle of an election, which said this.

What I've posted here is true and utterly non-partisan.

I would say the very same things if I were still a liberal Democrat which, in the JFK Democrat sense, I still am.

I'm also liberal in the sense that I loathe those panic-stricken litle leftists who censor people.

[Clownkicker]

So let's review, shall we?

johnforbes is on record arguing that Secretaries of State using their discretion (as in Pennsylvania) to (due to a serious public health emergency) temporarily adjust the election rules set by the state legislatures is unacceptable and illegal, and that the only election results he will accept are those where voters must show up at the polls and show a picture ID.

Now we have johnforbes on the record arguing how safe mail-in ballots are if you are Donald Trump, arguing FOR a Secretary of State in Florida using his discretion to allow a violation of state election law by sending out a ballot to an unverified someone at a given address that was requested a week after the final valid ballot request date, arguing that it is fine that someone doesn't go down and present a picture ID to get their ballot if you are Donald Trump, and that in-person voting with a picture ID is not needed if you are Donald Trump--that his verified signature is enough to make the ballot legal.

I wonder if johnbforbes sees anything partisanly hypocritical about his two positions on mail-in voting? Anyone hazard a guess what kind of whining and back-peddling we are going to be subjected to now?

[johnforbes]

No, that is not quite what I said.

Focus on this; it matters.

The US Constitution gives authority to change elections to state legislatures -- NOT to Secs of State or governors or state supreme courts.

That is why what was done in places such as PA was illegal.

Why didn't the US Sup Ct hear this case on its merits? Surely it had to be because it knew it would get into another partisan mess like the Bush v Gore case where Democrats correctly complained that the election had been decided by the US Sup Ct.

Because all of the key swing states did violate their own election laws, and TX did indeed have an equal protection claim (look at Bush v Gore, the most relevant precedent), so the US Sup Ct should have thrown the matter back to the appropriate state legislatures for resolution.

Trump would have remained president the the Left would have screamed.

So, for the same reason the Court took the weasel path on Obamacare, it sidestepped the controversy looming.

The only problem is that it remains the highest court, and where else do people go to have crucial conflicts resolved?

[Clownkicker]

Yes, that is EXACTLY what you said. You didn't take issue with anything I said. You didn't quote me saying anything that was incorrect. You didn't correct any specific characterization I made of the things you said. Why? Because you couldn't. Because it was a fair characterization.

You defended Trump getting a mail-in ballot with a late request, without going to city hall with a picture ID, and his ballot being accepted on his signature verification alone as being perfectly safe and acceptable to you. You also didn't say that Trump should have been refused his ballot because giving it to him violates the state's rules on mail-in ballots. If it's illegal in PA for elections officials to bend the rules for practical reasons, then it's illegal in Florida too. But being a partisan hypocrite, you don't care as long as it's Republican Trump getting a ballot instead of a PA Democrat getting one.

And stop boring us with you incessant speculation about things you know nothing about. Once is fine. Fifteen times just is parading your incorrigible partisan stupidity.

Accept the rulings of our courts as we all must and move on before you are thrown in jail for contempt. Get to work changing the law instead of whining about how you don't like the law. Whiners never like anything except listening to themselves whine. And no, I won't "focus" on your whining. I gave it its due attention and then let it go.

[johnforbes]

This topic is simple, and non-partisan.

The US Constitution gives authority to change elections to state legislatures -- NOT to Secs of State or governors or state supreme courts.

That is why what was done in places such as PA was illegal.

[Clownkicker]

^^^^^^Well, now that makes sixteen times johnny has bored us with his partisan whining and speculation.



If only I had a tandem bicycle so johnforbes could sit behind and put his 'back peddling' to some constructive benefit for me.

As it is, his hypocritical partisan whining does nothing at all for me or anyone else.

[johnforbes]

The truth is not boring, nor is it whining.

It is the truth that this simple and non-partisan.

The US Constitution gives authority to change elections to state legislatures -- NOT to Secs of State or governors or state supreme courts.

That is why what was done in places such as PA was illegal.

[Clownkicker]

Make that boring whining seventeen times now... and counting...

[johnforbes]

Every post is as fresh and new as the April rain.

The US Constitution gives authority to change elections to state legislatures -- NOT to Secs of State or governors or state supreme courts.

That is why what was done in places such as PA was illegal.

[Clownkicker]

Make it eighteen times...


"Blah, blah, blah....blah blah blah blah, blah....blah, blah, blah, blah"-john"whiny-punkass-bitch"forbes

[johnforbes]

There are times when a core point is so salient that emphasis just adds a patina of novelty and freshness.

This is one of those wonderful times.

This topic is simple, and non-partisan.

The US Constitution gives authority to change elections to state legislatures -- NOT to Secs of State or governors or state supreme courts.

That is why what was done in places such as PA was illegal.

[elklindo69]

I recently heard that some Montana Trump supporter who participated in the Capitol Hill riot hollered out "Where are the fucking traitors at? Drag them out by their fucking hair!"

Just trespassing....right?

[johnforbes]

There is no danger that Clownslacker will be dragged anywhere by his hair.

He has just 3 hairs on his gleaming pate, and -- even though they are so previous to him that he has given them names -- they are not strong enough to serve as handles.