[johnforbes]

"n fact, every single Democrat president since 1977 has questioned the legitimacy of U.S. elections, according to the Republican National Committee. In both 2013 and 2016, Biden claimed that Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election. In May 2019, Biden said he “absolutely agrees” that Trump was an “illegitimate president.” Biden cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 2022 midterms this year.

In 2006, then-DNC Chairman Howard Dean stated that he was “not confident that the [2004] election in Ohio was fairly decided.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said it is “appropriate” to have a debate concerning the 2004 election and claimed that there were “legitimate concerns” regarding the “integrity” of U.S. elections. Then-Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) cast doubt on the security of electronic voting machines in the 2004 election, saying he was “worried” that some machines do not have a paper trail.

Democrats also cast doubt on the 2016 election. Seven House Democrats tried to object to the 2016 election electoral votes. After President Trump’s victory in 2016, 67 Democrats boycotted his inauguration, with some claiming Trump’s victory was not legitimate.

In September 2017, Hillary Clinton said she would not “rule out” questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 election. In October 2020, she added that the 2016 presidential election was not conducted legitimately, saying, “We still don’t really know what happened.”

In addition, Democrats supported Stacey Abrams in her stolen election claims. Hillary Clinton said Stacey Abrams “would have won” Georgia’s gubernatorial race “if she had a fair election” and that Stacey Abrams “should be governor” but was “deprived of the votes [she] otherwise would have gotten.”

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) said, “I think that Stacey Abrams’s election is being stolen from her.” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) contended that “if Stacey Abrams doesn’t win in Georgia, they stole it.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said, “the evidence seems to suggest” the race was stolen from Stacey Abrams.

“We won,” Abrams falsely claimed about the 2018 election. “I didn’t lose; we got the votes,” and “we were robbed of an election.” She also called it a “stolen election” multiple times and argued, “It was not a free and fair election.”

[Clownkicker]

Do you have some sort of point, dimwit?

[johnforbes]

Vide supra.

[Clownkicker]

So no, you don't have a point. Got it.

[johnforbes]

I salute Mr Forbes for this valuable thread.

It is a significant contribution to the onward march of human knowledge.

[Clownkicker]

Leave it to johnforbes to congratulate himself for starting yet another pointless thread that contributes nothing whatsoever to the onward march of human knowledge.

As we see from his responses, even HE can't tell us what its point is supposed to be.

[johnforbes]

The greatt pre-Socratic thinker Zeno struggled to decide what a "point" was. Perhaps he was too much akin intellectually to Parmenides, but that shall have to be left to philosophical scholars.

The great artist Seurat had many points, of course, but even he didn't make as many points as Mr Forbes.

[Clownkicker]

And meanwhile, johnforbes has No point.

So we are back to where we started this thread.

[johnforbes]

All life is a wheel, as eastern philosophers have long held.

This threat began with Clowntroller being obtuse, and continued until it arrived again at that.

[Clownkicker]

"This threat(sic) began with Clowntroller being obtuse, and continued until it arrived again at that."-johnflubs

Wow, finally johnforbes admits that HE is this "Clowntroller" he keeps bringing up ("This threat began with Clowntroller...") since johnforbes began this thread.

Not only did he admit he is the "Clowntroller" he's always criticizing, but he also admitted he is being obtuse when he begins threads. ("This threat began with Clowntroller being obtuse,...")

Since this thread started with a plagiarized post by johnforbes without any accreditation or additional commentary, then he clearly must be the one who began the thread while being obtuse.

johnforbes steps in it again with another of his too-frequent Freudian slips.

[johnforbes]

In a sense, Mr Forbes did begin the thread.

But would the thread even have been necessary were it not for the Mariana Trench depth of Clowntroller's ignorance?

It is a question well worth asking, and thus Mr Forbes was constrained to pose the query.

[Clownkicker]

"In a sense, Mr Forbes did begin the thread."-johnflubs

Yes, in the sense that you actually ARE the guy who started the thread, dimwit. It's documented right there in the first post for everyone to see.


"But would the thread even have been necessary were it not for the Mariana Trench depth of Clowntroller's ignorance?"-john"Clowntroller"forbes

Yeah, flail around desperately, johnny. Try to dig yourself out of the profound depths of another of your Freudian slips.

[johnforbes]

Yes, I agree that the beginning may well be construed as the beginning.

The commencement, so ot speak.

So, in that sense, Mr Forbes did begin the thread, and we heartily commend him for doing so.

When one considers all the many and various matters which scream for Mr Forbes' attention -- a cri de coeur, as it were -- we must all be thankful.

[Clownkicker]

^^^^^^^^ Finally, johnforbes admits that he is indeed the "Clowntroller" he keeps ridiculing and that he is obtuse when he starts threads.

That wasn't so hard, was it, johnny. Admitting you're a giant partisan asshole is the first step toward recovery.

Be sure to let us know when you get to step 8 of the program, johnny.

[johnforbes]

Mr Forbes is shaken by this experience, as he was in 1964: