Even Mickey Mouse would have been a better choice than Trump in retrospect. It doesn’t matter how Biden is doing. Once he decided to lie about the election and not stop even 6 months later (and he’ll never stop)(basically try to steal it from Biden), not support the transition to Biden, and incite the January 6th insurrection based on the election lie including how he treated his very loyal VP nearly leading to his death based on him publicly showing he was UPSET WITH PENCE FOR NOT VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION, that sealed it for numerous people like myself that Trump should NEVER, EVER hold public office again. TRUMP IS NOT FIT FOR PUBLIC OFFICE, PERIOD!! Nuff said.

 For those not agreeing with this: I’m absolutely dumbfounded. Trump needs to stay far, far away from any public office as he is a very dangerous man to the US’ current/intended form of govt. The Founding Fathers must be turning over in their graves as a result of this bullshit.

 I recommend you and others go back and listen to EVERY SINGLE WORD of Liz Cheney’s speech.

 The GOP, which I voted for 8 straight times through Romney for POTUS, is now dead to me as I wouldn’t be caught dead voting that way until if and when it gets back to a semblance of normality. I hope there is a new breakaway party formed. The name “Republican” is now tainted with a horrible stench.

WX,  you are stuck on Trump.   Almost every comment you make is directly or at least  somehow related to Trump and your absolute disdain for him. 

I am talking about the apparent downward spiral this country is falling and Biden's absolute inability to address the issues he has not directly caused. 

Please try and dispute any of that.   Trumpo is history. 

Though I agree strongly with Larry, Tim is absolutely right.

We can't keep letting Biden off the hook by saying "well, at least he's better than Trump"

If I get into a car major car accident and have a broken leg and a skull fracture and the ambulance shows up, I don't say "I don't need help, I had 2 broken legs before"  or, "I fell off of a 3 story building in 1983 and lived, so I will be just fine this time"

Biden's performance should be judged based exclusively on................Biden's performance. 

If we want to discuss how the country would be reacting to a Trump presidency right now.............that's a wonderful topic. It would be much MORE divided and the left would be going absolutely bonkers.

And it great for Larry to mention that in his response and remind us of his strong hatred towards Trump.  I actually agree with everything he says about that psychopath, who is about to tear the republican party apart and could go on with a metmike dissertation about it(and put everybody to sleep). ....but Tim is asking us specifically to focus on Biden's horrible performance so far in this thread, we should honor/respect his request.

Mike,

 Tim said: “So  I have to wonder.   At what point do Biden supporters start to wonder if perhaps they did not make the best choice?”

 ———————

Mike,

  I disagree with you and Tim as I am addressing exactly what Tim asked. Please read what I quoted from Tim. I absolutely made the best choice and I’m telling the forum why. I realized it much more based on the psychopath’s behavior since the election. 

 What other choice could possibly be better if I wanted Trump to lose? The only choice if I wanted my vote to be meaningful was to vote Biden. And now I’m telling the forum that I feel better than ever that I absolutely made the right choice. And I will always be proud to tell anyone I desire to tell that I voted for Biden for the reasons given. So, what I’ve said in this thread is 100% relevant.

 Regarding Biden’s performance itself, I have mixed feelings. The main positive is that he’s behaving “Presidentially”. He’s a calm, sane man and I feel much more comfortable with him in office. He has way more respect for his political opponents than Trump ever had for his. He doesn’t treat them like enemies.

And by the way, he has shown no major sign of dementia imo so far.

You are loking at this as a binary choice between Trump and Biden.     The dems could have chosen another dem candidate.   Do they still support the president they chose?     I've heard very little of how happy they are with him,  but I've also heard no criticism.

As far as "acting Presidential", I could give 2..........    I don't care about that.  And callking Putin a criminal and murderer was hardly repsectuful and certainly not in this country's best interest.  He's also had some choice words for some of his opposition that is certainly less tha respectful.    But I don't care about that as much as I care about results.

He's doing a terrible job,  IMO. 

This is a fair/good response Larry.

One thing that we should also honor is what a person WANTS to say. Not just in this thread but in our lives.

Tim is looking for specific comments judging Biden in an absolute sense, based on Biden being judged on just Biden.

Larry shouldn't have to adhere to whatever Tim wants us to state/say, just because he started the thread. 

For Larry, the difference between Biden and Trump iS EVERYTHING, when it comes to this issue...which I totally get and actually totally agree with. 

But I feel very comfortable pointing out Biden's many problems right now too in the absolute sense that Tim's views things as. 

Sometimes, when we are not actually listening to what people say because we are limiting  what we will listen to..... hearing them say.....we miss some good points that THEY want to make.

Tim,

Biden’s treatment of Putin is not relevant to what I was referring to. I’m talking about Biden’s treatment of his political opponents in our country. Trump treated them like scum and as if they were enemies to our country, which thoroughly disgusted me. Biden has done nothing of the sort. The US has people with a wide variety of opinions on issues which they can freely express. That’s what makes the country great (as of now).

And even if we've heard them say it 100 times before and THINK that we already know what they want to say.......it means that if they say something different..we will probably miss it because we tuned them out.

Larry just gave us a good example of that.....expressing the opinion we have heard a zillion times before but with a new thought to support it.

I think many n the left ARE enemies of this country.  Not limited to, but including Anyone who despises capitalism,  the constitution, people who support ANTIFA, or try to deny their existence,  is an enemy of this country and what it strives to be.

And that describes many on the left .

So, while I don't condone Trump,s choice of words,  I don't entirely disagree with his message.

"So, while I don't condone Trump,s choice of words,  I don't entirely disagree with his message."

One could get away with that statement BEFORE the election Tim. What Trump did AFTER the election, featuring the most diabolical ACTIONS by a president in our country's history, that did more damage to our country and the democracy  by a wide margin than any other president..................went light years beyond a "choice of words"

Tim,

 I also absolutely despise Antifa as well as those hijacking BLM. I like the overall idea of BLM, but feel that:

1. It shouldn't have been called BLM. It should have been called BLAM: Black Lives Also Matter. Their idea is supposed to be BLAM, but some (mainly right wing ignorant folks) have misinterpreted the phrase BLM as meaning OBLM (Only BLM).

2. There are a significant number of people hijacking BLM, including those who are undoubtedly racists against whites, and using the name BLM to join forces with Antifa, looting, and other undesirable elements.

3. BLM does focus on mainly cops killing Blacks. They don't focus on other blacks being murdered as that is a separate issue and a big problem in itself. 

4. Antifa as well as the BLM hijackers are the equivalent of enemies of our country imo. But Trump spoke out (and still does) against ALL political opponents as enemies. that includes folks like McCain and especially Cheney. That's disgusting and uncalled for. They are Americans who have cared/care about our country.

Wx

You said some thing about Trump and then Pence nearly leading him to death

I don't understand that part or I totally missed what happened

Would you please bring me up to speed regarding Pence's near death

Wayne said:

Wx

You said some thing about Trump and then Pence nearly leading him to death

I don't understand that part or I totally missed what happened

Would you please bring me up to speed regarding Pence's near death

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 1/6/21, Trump was speaking to a big group in DC not far from the Capitol. During that, he was saying that he was disappointed with Pence for doing his Constitutional Duty of announcing/certifying the winner of the election based on the already certified results of the states' election results/Electoral College. It is a ceremonial role with no power to change anything. But Trump didn't care. A good number in the crowd got upset with Pence as a result of Trump and started chanting that Pence was a traitor and should be killed then and as they marched to the Capitol. They even set up a noose!

From the following link:

 "President Donald Trump lashed out Wednesday at Vice President Mike Pence as Trump supporters stormed the Capitol, amid Congress beginning the process of certifying the presidential election results.

"Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify," 

'Trump earlier held a mass rally for his supporters ahead of Congress' certification, which is normally a ceremonial process. He encouraged them to go to the Capitol and repeatedly said he wanted Pence, who is the presiding officer of the session, to override the outcomes that have been certified in battleground states that went to Biden.' 

 Trump Goes After Mike Pence in Tweet as Protesters Storm Capitol During Joint Session (newsweek.com)

What Trump did to Pence, by itself would be enough for me to question Trumps character.

And he continues to attack Pence, a good man that stood by him for 4 years and kept his mouth shut then and most importantly, AFTER Trump attacked him relentlessly this year............and  Trump continues to do that.

Mike Pence. the man with impeccable character just ignores it and doesn't respond in kind. I would vote for him as president in a heart beat.

However, the MSM, as usual want to take something horrible that Trump did and magnify it with BS to make it sound apocalyptic/deadly.

They want us to believe that the blood thirsty killers that were rioting in January were going to hang and kill several people if they could just get their hands on them......including Pelosi, Pence and probably others.

This is not based at all on any credible information. The main source is MSM speculation using things like the crowd chanting "hang Mike Pence" and they had a rope with a noose on it.

Anybody that buys this absurd line of bull is letting their subjectively of wanting to believe in something get the best of them.

How many protests do we know about, where people bring all sorts of paraphernalia and chant all sorts of hateful slogans that are not meant literally.

How about "Pigs in a blanket, fry em up like bacon"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p213G6sgdXE

Did the BLM protesters really intend to kill cops out there that day?

Of course not. Just like the rioters at the Capital did not intend to kill Mike Pence or Nancy Pelosi. When the MSM takes something bad, then spins into it into a new realm of complete bs to convince everybody it was 10 times as bad, Trumps "The press is the enemy of the people" is actually true at times like this.

Capitol rioters came within a minute of reaching Pence, report says

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/15/dc-capitol-rioters-nearly-reached-vice-president-mike-pence.html

I am completely disgusted with what happened at this event but let's stop making it into another 9-11.

The other side, pretending that these rioters were just rowdy tourists that got carried away taking pictures of themselves in a place where they didn't belong is underestimating what they did by 10 times too. 

Amazing that in todays age, when we know with clarity of all the details of this event........because of more video and facts than every before that we have 1 group describing it as 10 times worse than what it really was and another group describing it as 10 times less important than it really was.

Shows where we are in this world of manufactured realities.

This is just an unusual example but a quintessential example of it. People use information to manufacture the reality that supports their side, their agenda/ideology or their cognitive bias.

What about the many situations when we have much less information about what really happened or the dynamics of the situation compared to the Insurrection Day? 

Where all the  many facts/evidence are based on WHAT WE ARE TOLD, not what we can see or verify like with this event?

That basically allows the sources to impose their personal/subjective interpretation on the facts with impunity. Turn wild speculation, into something sold as skillful, high confidence  reporting.

Hi WX, I am totally with you on that comment about Trump/McCain.

I also agree with you on the comment about black-on-black crime, and metmike has written about it numerous times.

A minor objection to this…..

“…mainly right wing ignorant folks) have misinterpreted the phrase BLM as meaning OBLM

I don’t think it’s just right wing ignorant folks who believe it means OBLM. Try walking up to a BLM protest and holler “all lives matter”, and see how quickly you are attacked.

You also used the term “hijacked”. You are not the only one saying so. I have heard many black folks complaining about the BLM movement (meaning a movement for racial justice) being “hijacked” by criminals and politicians.

I disagree on that one. I believe, BLM was never “hijacked”. BLM was created by 3 women who are communists (as they admitted themselves). One of them was interviewed last summer and questioned about the chaos created by the protests. Were they protesting about George Floyd? No. Were they protesting about racial injustice? No. She said they were doing all this to get Trump out. (this was HER opinion, not the opinion of the many peaceful protesters who really did protest about injustice)

IMHO, these 3 founders pretended to fight for racial justice, but for them, it has always been about promoting communism in the US. Anarchy and chaos have been used before to achieve such goals.

***************

Timnew,

Biden followers (and many on the right) still are very happy that Trump is gone. Biden is “presidential”, he is a nice guy. So what, if some things are not going well… at least Trump is gone.

However, I believe, things will get a lot worse, very soon.

Inflation is already here… but it will become a lot worse, IMHO.

The border is already in total collapse.A dozen counties in Texas declared a state of emergency last week, because their cities are totally overrun by illegal aliens. More and more immigrant kids are winding up in detention centers, 10s of thousands of them!.

Homelessness is increasing at increasing rates.

Crime in our cities is already rising at record rates… but it will get worse, because our leaders don’t care.

It could easily come to a point, where voters say ‘anybody but Biden/Harris”

************

And I agree with all of you… Pence has class. He shouldn’t have been treated like this. 

Thanks for the great comments Gunter,

Sometimes, it might be best for me to shut up and let good conversations continue..........instead of jumping in with authentic facts(not necessarily to correct anybody now, just try to add some good info).

 So I'll just be brief and encourage others to continue like this with a big thanks.

On BLM, this is some of their history. Keep in mind something that Tim mentioned about MSM sources, this source is sometimes biased to the left but for general information, I would use them with 99% confidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter

It was created after Trayvon Martin was murdered. I followed the facts and audio recordings of that case closely and believe very strongly that Zimmerman got away with murder and Trayvon was doing nothing wrong. There were several lies in there.  This is not the time to present the evidence, other than to use it for a dang good reason to start BLM, which I strongly supported at the start.

Fast forward to the state of MO and the Michael Brown shooting by a good cop doing a good job that was absolutely justified and  this was obvious to anybody with objective brain cells. The "hands up don't shoot" slogan was 100% made up and sold to one side and it became the marketing chant for BLM. 

This is when the BLM movement left the realm of representing truth for me. Even if you have a just cause, if you lie about facts and create false narratives, then you are basically saying that your position doesn't have enough truth by itself to stand on, so you have to conjure up things to bolster support. Telling lies, sometimes whoppers about key events that you are using to showcase/represent your cause means that your cause is NOT authentic.

Telling the truth must come first. 

There have been many problems with some cops using excessive force and being protected when it results in abuse or in a death of the criminal/victim(or even innocent person).

The way to properly address this is to respect the cops, especially since most are good people (if you want them to respect you/us) while trying to help them to SERVE US better, which is what they want to do.

BLM does not do that. They sheet on the cops and try to frame them for justified incidents and worst of all, the vast, vast majority of the problem that is causing all these encounters with cops is because blacks have a 6 times higher rate of committing violent crime but BLM NEVER addresses this......the most important factor by several orders of magnitude.

It's just an insane type of rationalization to not see this. You could save 100's of times more black lives, including those saved from reducing the number of confrontations with cops doing their job by just effectively teaching people to not break laws. And even if they break a law, to NOT resist. 

So BLM NOT doing this tells me, that although there are plenty of sincere but brain washed individuals in the group, the way that this particular  cause applies its principles tells me that its completely fraudulent and political. 

OK, sorry for going so long but don't let it curtail other thoughts, especially if you disagree.

Instead of BLM, if we wanted to more accurately describe their cause using the realities of their actions, we should replace BLM with something like CAB.........Cops Are Bad.     Or BAS.........Blacks Are Special...........they shouldn't be held accountable to the same laws as whites. 

It continues to be pointed out by one side that Biden's frequent confusion or communication stumbles are just part of how he has always been, with a life long stutter.

This is totally made up to cover for  his MAJOR, MAJOR declining mental sharpness and cerebral plunge from one of the most gifted speakers in our history. 

Sure, he might have had a bit of a stutter when he was younger but I remember him well 30 years ago.

No need to use MY words. We can use the footage of him back in those days as an AUTHENTIC piece of information to conclusively prove it and that we are being lied to by those who don't want us to know it.

This was Joe Biden 35 years ago:

Joe Biden makes impassioned speech on apartheid in resurfaced 1986 footage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_v00iGJCLY

Note in this report that CBS described him, in 1988 as"having a reputation for being the best orator in the senate but long winded" This is just after the 1 minute mark in the broadcast below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQaayo2Oed8

Here is Joe Biden in 2021. Moments of total confusion like this are not the exception but instead, they define him and are only getting worse with his decline:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdfvIvYPPRo

The way that the MSM depicts this is ludicrous and very dishonest. Showing a young kid  that stutters and comparing that to an old man that has a degenerative brain condition.

How President Joe Biden Is Giving Hope to Millions Who Stutter

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-president-joe-biden-is-giving-hope-to-millions-who-stutter

My wife has commented that Joe Biden reminds her of my 94 year old dad when he talks. The oldest person that she has ever known.

My dad is a very bright guy still and we love him dearly but has lost some of his once brilliant communication skills.. This is totally normal/expected at his age........but we don't have the same expectations of him as we would the president of the United States.

Biden is clearly afflicted with the early onset of a disease/condition that hits most people at a much older age.

Reagan, possibly the most gifted speaker of all presidents, was showing increasing signs of Alzheimer disease to some people as his 2nd term advanced.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/side-effects/201101/when-did-reagans-first-signs-alzheimers-appear

 Biden is crystal clearly MUCH worse off than Reagan here at the start of his first term.

The progression of this type of disease varies from person to person. Its possible but unlikely that somebody who has advanced this quickly, at such a young age as Biden would suddenly arrest the progression of the condition/disease but there is no cure and they DO NOT get better. It's possible that a new medicine or treatment will help and change that.

Biden, at this point is the least capable president during my life time and clearly is not capable of doing the job well, in my opinion. Effectively being able to communicate to the world is right at the top of job requirements for the most important job in the world.

Not being able to do that is expected for my dad in a assisted living facility. However, he is representing our country to the world. Even if he had all the best policies, when we see and hear them being delivered by a feeble old man who sometimes gets confused, it makes you wonder about who he represents if this is supposedly their best representative.

I predict that Kamala Harris will take over before Biden finishes this term.

"So, while I don't condone Trump,s choice of words,  I don't entirely disagree with his message."

One could get away with that statement BEFORE the election Tim. What Trump did AFTER the election, featuring the most diabolical ACTIONS by a president in our country's history, that did more damage to our country and the democracy  by a wide margin than any other president..................went light years beyond a "choice of words"

I have not read the rest of the discussion.  I'll get to it.  But for now,  I'll reply to this.

Huwy Fark!!!   We are talking about comments before the election.  You can't base all of your opinions/replys on Jan 6th.   WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EVENTS BEFORE THEN. 

We can debate Trump's culpability in the "Insurection" but I already know how that will go, so I won't bother.

My point was/is that calling some on the left "enemies of this country" is not unfounded.    Would you care to discuss that?

When I signed up for the military,  I took an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies,  foreign and domestic.  It's essentially the same oath taken by every elected official.  Any elected official who does not abide by that oath is an enemy of the country.   I still take it seriously. It's a lifetime commitment. And I insist on the same from the people who represent me in government.  Dayum shame so many do not.

Shall I name a few examples of leftist elected officials who are not living up to the oath they took?  

Military

 I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Elected official:

 “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”  

Tim,

Huwy Fark!!!   We are talking about comments before the election.  You can't base all of your opinions/replys on Jan 6th.   WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EVENTS BEFORE THEN. 

Huwy Fark to you too Tim. Is this a new religious holiday that I didn't know about (-:

With regards to what Trump has said,  the actual date of Jan. 6th gets around 1% of my weighting for things that he said  and DID AFTER the lost election. He is responsible for those events but 99% of what he has said and did was not on Jan 6th.

If you prefer not to discuss that, its ok with me but this has definitely defined who he REALLY is.

If this were May 2020, then we could have a discussion not knowing this and I supported him a year ago because of his good agenda, despite what I constantly described as his despicable character traits. I totally changed my opinion about that though because of the authentic facts after the election. 

If you want to pretend that it's May or October 2020 or tell us that what happened after the election does not matter or was limited to just 1 day, Jan 6th.............suit yourself but I don't have to.

  I am dialing in who he really is based on the latest and most important information, like a good little scientist practicing the scientific method should do.

 I thought Trump was good for this country for most of 4 years but was always looking for reasons why I might be wrong and not right and Trump gave me/us  the biggest one imaginable with what is being called The Big Lie.

Something snapped in Trump after the election, however that brought out the worst in him and his negative character traits have totally consumed him since then, so those of us overlooking that before, can't do that anymore.

Hate to butt into your lively debate… but one thing you often say, bothers me. You accuse Trump of having caused the Jan 6 “insurrection” with his never-ending comments about a “stolen election”

After the election, I was involved in these discussions also, and I do remember what was going on.

The country was in turmoil. If one checked news sites, other than the MSM, the daily news was full of “irregularities”, to use a mild word. It seemed like every day new samples of misconduct were presented(no need to go into detail, it would only cause more never-ending futile arguments)

What I really wanted to say is… this data was available on the internet, and it got many Trump followers upset. Watching all these items coming in, on a daily basis, convinced many that this was a dirty election. One didn’t need Trump to talk about stolen elections. Just looking at all the stuff on the internet was enough to come to this conclusion.

One of the strongest proponents of a “stolen election” was Alex Jones. He organized multiple protests and marches, not only in Texas, but also in other states, touting his “stop the steal” movement.

What I am trying to say, metmike, you can’t blame Trump’s rethoric for the turmoil. If Trump had been totally silent, it would have still been what it was. The army of Trump supporters would have still spoken of a “stolen election”, and would have still come to Wahington on Jan 6. And I would bet, if you asked some of them today, they would still say the same.

BTW, Alex Jones also brought a huge contingent of his followers to Washington, on Jan 6. However, he made it clear that he wanted no violence and that all his people cooperated with the police.

Today, I am still wondering, who was behind the “insurgency”. Was it just the rowdy element of otherwise peaceful Trump followers, or was it organized by people who wanted to incite violence to destroy Trump.

(the BLM guy Sullivan certainly tried unsuccessfully to instigate arson, but, IMHO, he was only a one-man side-show)

However, I do agree with you… challenging an election is certainly OK, but there had to be a point where the President should have said “OK, let’s move on”.  But Trump is not that kind of man.

"After the election, I was involved in these discussions also, and I do remember what was going on.

The country was in turmoil. If one checked news sites, other than the MSM, the daily news was full of “irregularities”, to use a mild word. It seemed like every day new samples of misconduct were presented(no need to go into detail, it would only cause more never-ending futile arguments)"

OK, there you go again referring to "every day new samples of misconduct". For the umpteenth time, I will repeat.  Show us the proven fraud please Gunter.  After 100 investigations and allegations and legal challenges, there must be something............or you wouldn't be bringing it up again. if you want to bring it up again, then be honest enough to show the fraud or admit there wasn't any fraud found.............or don't try to pretend there was but you don't want to go into detail because you want to avoid an argument.

"What I am trying to say, metmike, you can’t blame Trump’s rethoric for the turmoil. If Trump had been totally silent, it would have still been what it was."

I couldn't possibly disagree with you more Gunter. Who do you think that it was, that made himself the very first president in history to not concede his loss but instead insisted repeatedly every day, all day long for months that the election was stolen from him and told his people "to fight like hell"

I am actually flabbergasted that you would make this statement Gunter. It's as if you completely and conveniently wiped history from your brain/memory.

To help you out, here are just a tiny fraction of the stories about it.

Trump has amplified voting falsehoods in over 300 tweets since election night.  

metmike: And this was only 2 weeks after the election.  

Nov. 16, 2020, 3:44 p.m. ET

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/technology/trump-has-amplified-voting-falsehoods-in-over-300-tweets-since-election-night.html

 AP FACT CHECK: Trump’s claims of vote rigging are all wrong

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-ap-fact-check-joe-biden-donald-trump-technology-49a24edd6d10888dbad61689c24b05a5

Read all the crazy things Trump had been saying to convince people of fraud with no evidence. 

Attorney General William Barr said the Justice Department had seen no evidence of widespread fraud to overturn Biden’s margin of victory. 

Can the forces unleashed by Trump’s big election lie be undone? 

https://www.witf.org/2021/01/17/can-the-forces-unleashed-by-trumps-big-election-lie-be-undone/  

By the numbers: President Donald Trump's failed efforts to overturn the election

Trump and allies filed scores of lawsuits, tried to convince state legislatures to take action,

organized protests and held hearings.. None of it worked.

       https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/politics/elections/2021/01/06/trumps-failed-efforts-overturn-election-numbers/4130307001/

Out of the 62 lawsuits filed challenging the presidential election, 61 have failed, according to Elias.  

How Trump's election lawsuits became his worst nightmare

    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/528683-how-trumps-election-lawsuits-became-his-worst-nightmare

Special Report: Stolen election? Republican lawmakers paralyzed by Trump's false fraud claims 

‘ABSURD’ LEGAL ARGUMENTS

 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-lawmakers-special-report/special-report-stolen-election-republican-lawmakers-paralyzed-by-trumps-false-fraud-claims-idUSKBN2A41CP

77 Days: Trump’s Campaign to Subvert the Election 

Hours after the United States voted, the president declared the election a fraud — a lie that unleashed a movement that would shatter democratic norms and upend the peaceful transfer of power 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/31/us/trump-election-lie.html

Expert on tyranny explains the Trump 'Big Lie' you've been hearing so much about lately  

https://www.upworthy.com/the-trump-big-lie-explained-historian 

Trump says he’ll ‘fight like hell’ to hold on to presidency 

https://apnews.com/article/trump-congress-reverse-election-loss-e2a6fa060432bd19d92a142a0da5688e

DALTON, Ga. (AP) — With mounting desperation, Donald Trump declared Monday night he would “fight like hell” to hold on to the presidency and appealed to Republican lawmakers to reverse his election loss to Joe Biden when they convene this week to confirm the Electoral College vote.  

Before mob stormed US Capitol, Trump told them to ‘fight like hell’ 

 https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/01/0

edit: Gunter said: "You accuse Trump of having caused the Jan 6 “insurrection” with his never-ending comments about a “stolen election”

Gunter, I try not to make accusations and never have strong opinions until after there is strong evidence with authentic facts to support that. ....which can be provided for all to see and verify.

Also, no need to apologize for butting in. You are always welcome in our conversations.

Maybe it was because you got your information from Infowars. Infowars completely bought into Trumps Big Lie of Biden stealing the election and maybe you got most of your info from Alex Jones but make no mistake...... it all originated with President Trump, whether people heard it directly from him, or people like Alex Jones that bought into Trump's Big Lie were passing it on to his viewers/listeners.

So I guess, in the opinion of some here, Trump's alleged conduct post-election,  renders any discussion, including but not limited to criteria for "enemies of this nation", null and void. That is the only thing that has not been discussed since I raised the question.

Thanks Tim!

"So I guess, in the opinion of some here, Trump's alleged conduct post-election,  renders any discussion, including but not limited to criteria for "enemies of this nation", null and void. That is the only thing that has not been discussed since I raised the question."

1. Tim, as always every topic about everything is always welcomed here and especially welcomed are opinions that disagree with me. Please don't mischaracterize that or anything stated by me. Nobody is preventing you from discussing this topic. I would love to do that. We are 25 posts into this thread and you have not given us an event, action, person or violation of the Constitution of somebody from the left for us to comment on. How can we discuss something that you want to discuss, if you don't even give us anything about it? Please give us something to discuss so that we can discuss it before falsely alleging it's been made null and void and pretending you are being censored.  

PLEASE give us information to discuss, other than what you gave us so far which is this "Shall I name a few examples of leftist elected officials who are not living up to the oath they took?"  https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69389/#69423

2. Referring to Trumps actions after the election as "Trump's alleged conduct post-election" immediately after I provided 10 links/articles that documented the massive authentic facts of his diabolical behavior  https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69389/#69430   would be like, referring to the Great Mississippi River Flood of 1993 as........... an alleged heavy rain storm. Or the Civil War as...........an alleged dispute between 2 groups that were mad at each other.   OK, my analogies are exaggerations of the point but that's intentional...............to help you to  understand it.  

You posted that you wanted to discuss elected officials not living up to the oath they took and I responded by giving you the authentic evidence about the person that gravely violated that oath by a wide margin over anybody else. I can't read your mind and give your not posted evidence too. That's your job Tim. 

It would be simple to point out that probably 75% or more of the federal government is at least meta-constitutional if not actually in direct violation.  Take a quick look with special attention to the tenth amendment, and try to prove me wrong.   One of my favorite, of many, examples was during the Obamacare debate where a reporter asked Pelosi if Obamacare was constitutional.   A basic knowledge of the document tells even the casual observer that Obamacare was anything but constitutional.   I've written chapters here on the forum about the unprecedented legislative and judicial slight of hand employed to support the "individual Mandate"., one of the most anti-constitutional passages in that tormented mash of nonsensical legislation.  Pelosi's response?  "Are you serious?  Is that a serious question?" as if the constitution were irrelevant.   You know,   that document she has repeatedly sworn to uphold and protect against all enemies foriegn and domestic?

You want to make the case that Trump's post election behavior was somehow in conflict with the constitution? You're wrong.   Even if he was lying,  questioning the results of an election is not a constitutional violation. If anythring,  it's protected under his first amendment rights.

You want to make a case that he "incited an isurrection"?    One that began before his speech ended where he asked his suporters to peacefuly march to the captitol?  You'll be required to make your case with conjecture dependent upon mind reading.

I prefer observable provable facts.

I will say that Trump's behavior was unpresidential, which characterized a great deal of his admin, but it was not unconstitutional.  

Thanks Tim!

"You want to make a case that he "incited an isurrection"?    One that began before his speech ended where he asked his suporters to peacefuly march to the captitol?  You'll be required to make your case with conjecture dependent upon mind reading."

Authentic facts, Tim. ONLY authentic facts used by OBJECTIVE minds. I'll provide some of them again since you ignored them the first time,  to give you another opportunity to acquire an OBJECTIVE mind.

you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/You+can+lead+a+horse+to+water

proverb You can give someone an advantage or provide them with an opportunity, but you can't force them to do something if they don't want to. 

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69389/#69430

Trump says he’ll ‘fight like hell’ to hold on to presidency 

https://apnews.com/article/trump-congress-reverse-election-loss-e2a6fa060432bd19d92a142a0da5688e

DALTON, Ga. (AP) — With mounting desperation, Donald Trump declared Monday night he would “fight like hell” to hold on to the presidency and appealed to Republican lawmakers to reverse his election loss to Joe Biden when they convene this week to confirm the Electoral College vote.  

Before mob stormed US Capitol, Trump told them to ‘fight like hell’ 

 https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/01/0

And about Trumps speech before the riot..let's actually look at it since that also appears to be in dispute here:

FACT CHECK: Trump’s call to action distorted in debate

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-us-capitol-remarks-221518bc174f9bc3dd6e108e653ed08d

THE FACTS: Trump’s speech was a call to action — a call to fight and save the country.

“Our country has had enough,” he told those who went on to stage the violent siege of the Capitol.

“We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal.”

Reschenthaler accurately quoted a line from Trump, when the president told supporters “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” 

But throughout his remarks, Trump spoke of the need to “fight,” to be angry, to stop President-elect Joe Biden from taking office.

— “We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

— “We want to go back, and we want to get this right because we’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed, and we’re not going to stand for that.”

— “Nobody knows what the hell is going on. There’s never been anything like this. We will not let them silence your voices. We’re not going to let it happen. Not going to let it happen.” The crowd repeatedly chanted “Fight for Trump!” “Thank you,” Trump said"

metmike: This is the first time that I actually looked at the entire  speech that day. I was for NOT impeaching him earlier this year because that was to divisive and political. However, after reviewing all the authentic facts more and since then,  I think they probably should have impeached him so that he can never run for office again. 

He is now in a position to potentially  really divide and obliterate the republican party even more. ....because obviously, many, many republicans are not getting these facts above  from their very right biased sources who are intentionally protecting Trump and pushing fake news about what he did...............so our republicans need to be protected from him and those sources pushing the falsehoods. 

I really didn’t want to get involved in yet another argument about the 2020 election. Debating this event is simply futile.

Again, I have no way of proving that the election was “stolen”. I never said that Trump was the real winner of this election. However, I can honestly say I have never seen an election with so many “questionable” components.

And I wanted to point out that my opinion does not come from the 300 tweets of Donald Trump. I am not a member of Twitter. I made my own conclusions.

The problem in today’s world is that any site who opposes the official propaganda is labelled as a “far right extremist’ site, or a “conspiracy theory” site. Anything coming from such sites MUST be “disinformation”.

I quickly scanned through your link “AP fact check” and want to address just a few….

Subject Poll Watchers: 

On one of those “questionable” sites, I saw a video that showed poll watchers who were refused entry. When they tried to look through the window, the people inside blocked the window with cardboard boxes.

AP now talks about this issue really being about how close (admitted) poll watchers were allowed to come to the workers (can’t argue with that.. considering Covid).

This link also quotes another incident that was apparently discussed in a hearing. Trump’s lawyers had to admit that a “non-zero number” of observes had been admitted (does this mean “1” was admitted? }.

There you have it… this issue is now “debunked”. The video that I saw with my own eyes is now irrelevant, because the poll watcher issue has been “debunked”.

Subject Dominion Finances: 

I saw a SEC document that seemed to indicate that, before the election, Dominion received a $420 mill investment from a Swiss firm, which is owned by Chinese entities.

Of course, this by itself does not prove anything, but AP talks about Dominion finances here : “..t’s true that the company is privately held and does not disclose its financials, but the New York-based private equity firm Staple Street Capital has owned a majority stake in Dominion since 2018. Fictional claims that Dianne Feinstein, the Clinton family, Nancy Pelosi and Hugo Chavez are owners of Dominion have been debunked….”

OK, the firm does not disclose it’s finances…. Therefore, the issue about the SEC document and the 420 mill investment is herewith “debunked”

I didn’t know about those claims about politicians owning stock in this company, but if AP says it’s “debunked”, then it must be so.

Subject Vote Switching: 

I was aware of 3 such incidences. The first one was in Michigan, where some 6k votes were switched to Biden. Officials quickly admitted the incident. The second one was the one I posted about. It happened in Penn.,if I remember correctly. A taped video of the CNN election coverage showed a sudden switch of some 20k votes from Trump to Biden.   And I saw a similar third incident of vote switching, and I don’t remember which state was involved

AP addresses this issue by explaining the Michigan incident. It was human error.   OK, so 6,000 mistakes were made, but they were corrected.  OK, so that’s it.

With this, the other 2 incidents that I know about, are now “debunked”. No need to bring them up again.

Of course, there is a lot more than these few issues. There were hundreds, if not thousands of witnesses who gave affidavits describing the violation of rules, if not outright fraud. However, the courts refused to hear any of them.

Therefore, Trump’s challenge of the election result has now become a “Big Lie”

How did Biden manage to get more votes than any president in history?

As WX put it, there were millions of people who rather would have seen Mickey Mouse in the WH, than Trump.

The 81 mill Biden votes most certainly included voters who didn’t care much for Biden, but they hated Trump so much that they voted for Biden.

Again, I am not claiming that Trump was the winner, as Trump himself is claiming. However, calling this the “most secure” election in US history is absurd, IMHO.

And I have great doubts about the next presidential election, unless some major changes are made.

Thanks Gunter!

Especially for your sincere opinions.

We're all in this together. We all want to root out election fraud and for the most secure elections possible in our country.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/68480/#68548

I enjoy collecting, interpreting and sharing objective facts/data and science for us to understand and use here. 

It's what I do for fun and to help enlighten others. 

Your contributions have been very helpful.

"Fight Like Hell"  is your argument that Trump incited a riot?  

Do a google search on "Fight Like Hell" from politicians.  You'll find hundreds of examples.   It doesn't mean "Lets incite an insurection".  Especially in a speech that concluded with "Let's peacefully march to the capitol".. 

I still want to hear your argument for his violation of any aspect of the constitution.   

Tim,

I've gone way beyond proving my points conclusively with tons and tons and tons of authentic evidence from numerous sources.

You can keep picking out little "snippets" to battle over while ignoring the other 98% and mischararacterizing/making up my position in order to attack the one you created, or stating that I don't know what authentic facts are.

Those are all your choices but it's clear that this is not an exchange of information involving 2 parties with the same objectives and I can't change your objective.

Which is perfectly fine. I have great respect for you and you continue to be a generous contributor to MarketForum on numerous fronts. 

On this issue, if you were going to ever learn something or even wanted to understand the points, that would have happened a long time ago.

I actually learned a bunch myself from the research, so it wasn't completely wasted (anytime I can learn something new.....it's a wonderful day) but here some of it is again for anybody that cares:

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69389/#69430

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69389/#69454

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69389/#69457

No,   you've prresented tons and tons of subjective opinion based on conjecture .  Thought crime is still not defined in the constitution.

Tell me which of Trump's actions were in violation of the constitution.

Tim,

You just don't know when to stop.

As I have long stated, if a poster expresses an interest in continuing a discussion, I will continue only because that's what they want, so as to not give them the "cold shoulder" treatment.

And also, I will repeat, this........ and the previous time that I mentioned this was to you, so please pay special attention.......when trying to drop an argument but you claimed it was because I was losing and bailing. When I try to drop discussions its ALWAYS when the opponent is losing or has lost...................and there is nothing to gain..............only something to lose by making the other side look bad.

 If I am losing at any point, it means that I must be wrong about something ...................and I change to being right........... then the discussion ends in agreement.

So you have forgotten that here and want to persist more and so, we will continue the lesson from before. 

You asked for this Tim, so I'm giving it to you.

I did not say anything previously about the Constitution, I never even mentioned the word in any of my previous posts. 

But here goes, just for you.............from an attorney that specializes in Constitutional Law.

                     Menu

A Practical Path to Condemn and Disqualify Donald Trump

    By Philip Zelikow  

    Friday, January 22, 2021, 2:13 PM

https://www.lawfareblog.com/practical-path-condemn-and-disqualify-donald-trump

"In the extensive discussions of this option, for instance, by Gerard Magliocca and Daniel Hemel here on Lawfare, there are two points that may be missed in those thickets and that require emphasis.

First, the 14th Amendment does not require the Senate to conclude that Trump engaged in an insurrection. The amendment requires only that Congress conclude that Trump gave aid or comfort to enemies of the Constitution. This he did, both on Jan. 6 and in the broader context of the events after the presidential election of 2020.

The House of Representatives has already adopted this conclusion. The article of impeachment adopted by the House found that Trump violated his oath to defend the Constitution “by willfully inciting violence against the Government of the United States.” It also found that this conduct was “consistent with his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 presidential election.” Thus, the House concluded, “In all of this, President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of government.”

Hemel’s explanation of the relevant standard confused matters a bit because he discussed how “aid and comfort” was defined under the criminal law of treason, which applies to enemies “of the United States.” The 14th Amendment is not identical to the criminal law of treason: It refers to enemies of the Constitution.

What America just experienced was an assault by enemies at home who, while claiming to be patriots, sought to override and thus overthrow the Constitution’s procedures for electing a president. Though he had sworn to defend the Constitution as a public official, Trump gave aid and comfort to these enemies of the Constitution. He thereby, under the 14th Amendment, disqualified himself from holding future office unless the Congress chooses to remove the disqualification by a two-thirds vote. 

The House already voted that Trump aided these enemies. The Senate could therefore just concur with the House’s conclusion, by majority vote, in a resolution. To make the legal implication of this shared conclusion clear, the resolution could add that, by these actions, Donald Trump gave aid or comfort to enemies of the Constitution of the United States. This would explicitly invoke the 14th Amendment standard. Period." 

metmike: If you want to disagree with the legal expert on the Constitution........be my guest but YOU asked to bring it into the realm of the Constitution and I did that for you. 

My points have always been just to show what Trump did after the election and I provided the massive authentic facts, which we all know are facts, not conjecture as you claim because they don't match up to support your case. They are not subjective or manufactured facts, they are objective AUTHENTIC facts. 

When having a debate, one of the most important elements is to be able to see what all the authentic facts are before you decide what the argument even is or what you should be arguing over.

The Ten Golden Rules of Argument

https://fs.blog/2014/10/the-ten-golden-rules-of-argument/

Everybody can learn something from this article............including me. #10 on the list matters more than all the other ones combined.

In my ideal world here, we can all be using threads to learn new things.

I honestly have learned more during the past 3 years from being moderator..........about people and especially about politics (mostly from doing research), than I had the previous 20 years.

We must all try to be honest also. I would not say that if not being willing to SHOW that with actions......note the countless threads here that are totally dedicated to providing good information and positive philosophies.

So don't believe it because of words, which are often used to manipulate peoples opinions.......believe the sincerity because of actions.

Debates are good things................when they feature an exchange of ideas and information communicated objectively so that each side is open to learn something new...........even if they don't learn something new. When there is no longer any hope for this to occur,  a continuation is nearly pointless.

"nearly" because, in a case like this, when one side persists, there actually was something profound to be learned.............not about the topic but about debates and arguments............note this post/discussion was born from that continuation.

We can often learn new things about just about anything if we just look at life as a constant opportunity to learn something new.

When bad things happen...........those can be golden opportunities to learn lessons.

When good things happen...........those too can be opportunities to learn.

Being right about something often provides the least amount of learning, since we assume that we already knew what there is to know..........but we can also realize how much we did NOT know.

Being wrong always gives us the best opportunity to learn the most. Whether we take advantage of that or not............is our personal choice but the opportunity is always there.

You claim you never mentioned the constitution, and while that is technically true, here''s what you said above.

You posted that you wanted to discuss elected officials not living up to the oath they took and I responded by giving you the authentic evidence about the person that gravely violated that oath by a wide margin over anybody else. I can't read your mind and give your not posted evidence too. That's your job Tim.

The oath discused was the oath to uphold and defend the constitution.  So,   I'll let you decide if you mentioned the constitution.

 I did not say anything previously about the Constitution, I never even mentioned the word in any of my previous posts.

Your legal expert above states quite clearly that Trump is in violation of the 14th for inciting a riot because congress said he did.     Using that logic,  he's also guity of collusion.    

But if you want to leave the last word to legal experts, here's one (of many) who explains why Trump's speech in no way meets the legal definition of incitement.  He's a former prosecutor for D.C.

The latest premise Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are pushing to impeach President Trump is just as flawed and just as insubstantial as the first one they peddled.  They point to Trump’s January 6, 2021 speech and claim that his rhetoric “incited insurrection” among other equally hysterical claims.

The problem with this claim is the speech itself.  It is just like every other Trump speech he’s ever given.  Further, if it were some kind of dog-whistle-laden rhetorical masterpiece that only he and his supporters (and the leftist elite, of course) can understand, why did only a tiny percentage of those assembled enter the Capitol, with fewer still taking part in the property theft or destruction, disrespectful behavior, and/or other facets of this imaginary insurrection?

Because the speech is completely devoid of any call to violence, much less to the overthrow of the United States’ government via spontaneous violent insurrection, Pelosi and her Democrat hordes are vague in their accusations, can’t point to one paragraph, one sentence, or even one phrase that supports their allegation.

Trump’s Rally Speech Was Not Illegal “Incitement” (legalinsurrection.com)

That last statement mimics my repeated question here.  What exactly did Trump do or say to incite a riot? There's a link to the actual speech in the linked article.  Perhaps you have heard or seen something I missed.  IMO, the last impeachment effort was every bit as valid as the first.

You have made the case that "Fight Like Hell" is the basis for the charge.  Here is a link to several examples of politicians using that same phrase.  Are they also guilty of insurection?

politiciansa who have said fight like hell - Bing video

"You have made the case that "Fight Like Hell" is the basis for the charge"

Tim,

Egads, why do you continue to constantly mischaracterize me, so you can attack a position that you have created?

This is getting pretty insane for you to repeat the same thing over and over, not just here but in other debates.

How can you not know you are doing it when I have pointed it out a dozen times this year and shown examples. Is this intentional???

AGAIN, I posted 10 links with the authentic information that documents much of what Trump did after the election and 2 of them had "Fight like Hell' in their title.

AGAIN, here is my position:

"My points have always been just to show what Trump did after the election and I provided the massive authentic facts"

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69389/#69479

                By metmike - May 14, 2021, 8:45 p.m.            

            Tim,

"Huwy Fark to you too Tim. Is this a new religious holiday that I didn't know about (-:

With regards to what Trump has said,  the actual date of Jan. 6th gets around 1% of my weighting for things that he said  and DID AFTER the lost election. He is responsible for those events but 99% of what he has said and did was not on Jan 6th."

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69389/#69425

Where do you see metmike claiming anywhere in this thread  that "fight like hell" is the basis for anything?  I mentioned it once while addressing Gunter. You are making that up...........again.

Please stop doing this Tim. It must be intentional if I keep pointing it out in almost every debate we have. 

At this point, I have made my points crystal clear over and over and over and you are just going thru an exercise of making up positions that I don't have, so you can have an argument with those positions......you are basically arguing with yourself Tim. Do you not realize that???

If you are dying for me to address the "fight like hell" statement by Trump...........then I will do it but haven't yet...................because it doesn't matter to my position.  I didn't even know for sure that Trump said that until this thread. I could care less that Trump said "fight like hell"  It might make things a tiny bit worse for him according to my case but I could care less that he said it so stop mischaracterizing my position as being based on it.

Trump did 100+ things that were much worse than saying "fight like hell"

I strongly urge you to read this post over:

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69389/#69480

Tim,

Just a couple of comments.

You continue to claim that Trump should still be president.

You also believe that , without the widespread fraud, he would have won most of the states that cost him the election.

After reading that, you were probably thinking "what in the heck is metmike talking about, I never said any of those things!!!"

You would be thinking right. I made it up...............just like you are constantly making up my positions so that you can have an argument attacking the made up position.  See how it feels?

So these recent debates have featured Tim arguing with Tim's made up position. 

It's nothing new of course and many people use it. I'm sure you've heard of it before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.^[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.^[2][3] Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.

We are all about learning here...............so let's capitalize on this opportunity to learn something new.

https://examples.yourdictionary.com/straw-man-fallacy-examples.html

Wow.    

Here is your "fight like hell" comment.

I couldn't possibly disagree with you more Gunter. Who do you think that it was, that made himself the very first president in history to not concede his loss but instead insisted repeatedly every day, all day long for months that the election was stolen from him and told his people "to fight like hell"

Also. I have NEVER said Trump should be president.   I've actually said the opposite many times.   I felt his conduct was unpresidential.

I have also never said there was wide spread fraud in the election.   I have said the absentee ballots.  coupled with the last minute unconstitutional rule changes were extremely prone to fraud and need a serious audit to restore the voters confidence.  Oddly enough,  there is a GREAT DEAL OF RESISTENCE TO THESE AUDITS.  I find that curious. 

I see you've ignored me busting you on "Never mentioned the constitution".  This is typical.

Finally,   above,  I said "I prefer to avoid these post election debates because I know where they end up ", in a thread I started where I stated my concerns about Biden.  The thread was hijacked, and that's fine. Happens all the time.   But you injected the sublect of the post election debate and then chastised me for pointing out the many flaws in your position.

As I have shown, repeatedly,  the facts do not support your partisan bias.   And you have yet to refute a single source I have provided.  You are welcome to try, but since you have not,  I'll assume you know you cannot.

So,  here's the deal.

I'll happily agree to disagree,  although I know you are absolutely wrong.

But don't expect me to sit by when you strut about the chessboard like the proverbial pgeon and expect me to be silent.

Choice is yours.

Tim,.

You just proved again that you don't pay any attention to what I am  saying...........please read it over.

I said the 100% total, complete opposite of what you just said that I said.

Tim:  I have NEVER said Trump should be president.   I've actually said the opposite many times.   I felt his conduct was unpresidential.

Did you not actually read what I had just said?

"You continue to claim that Trump should still be president.

After reading that, you were probably thinking "what in the heck is metmike talking about, I never said any of those things!!!"

You would be thinking right. I made it up...............just like you are constantly making up my positions so that you can have an argument attacking the made up position.  See how it feels?"

+++++++++++++++

You couldn't have possibly read what I just stated before making this last comment of yours.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69389/#69492

Tim says:

"Wow.    

Here is your "fight like hell" comment.

I couldn't possibly disagree with you more Gunter. Who do you think that it was, that made himself the very first president in history to not concede his loss but instead insisted repeatedly every day, all day long for months that the election was stolen from him and told his people "to fight like hell"

Did you not read what I just said?

metmike: Where do you see metmike claiming anywhere in this thread  that "fight like hell" is the basis for anything?  I mentioned it once while addressing Gunter.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So you are pointing out........what I just got done pointing out to you.......because you must not have read me.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69389/#69483

Tim,

The reason that this conversation persisted is that YOU asked for it to persist AFTER I tried to put it to rest numerous posts ago.

I am painfully ready to end it if that's what you want now.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69389/#69479

                By metmike - May 16, 2021, 12:08 p.m.            

Tim,

You just don't know when to stop.

As I have long stated, if a poster expresses an interest in continuing a discussion, I will continue only because that's what they want, so as to not give them the "cold shoulder" treatment.

I am totally happy to end it......FINALLY with you thinking that I'm 100% wrong on everything, which is where we were numerous posts ago. 

Just to let you know, my objective was not to prove I was right because,  you will note,  I was never defending my position at all with  the last numerous posts as being right. 

I spent that entire time CLARIFYING what my position was...............basically repeating what I had already repeated over and over and over and over in response to you making up a position and attacking that one.

One of the most important elements to a good debate is listening and reading what the other side is telling you. 

Otherwise, you are debating yourself.

So,  here's how you want it to work.

You inject a subject into a thread and it's to be the last word.   Anyone who refutes your comment is being persistent and beating a dead horse.   

You are correct that I Have glazed over some of your statements, because I continue to look for the answer to my question, which you have completely avoided.  I suggested you were basing your insistence on a case for Trump inciting a riot based on the words "Fight like Hell".    You state that's not your case,   but I've asked you, or anyone, several times, to point to the specific words/actions that incited the riot.  You reply with lots of unrelated info and claim that make your case, but in the final, neither you nor the dems can point to what substantiates their case. "What, specifically, did Trump do to start a riot?" And that is the only point I've made, and the only point relevant to the discussion.

Meanwhile, after my offer to agree to disagree,   you spent several posts disagreeing with me  a few more times, and once agin, insist that it be the final word.   Hillarious.

Thanks MetMike.

Thanks Tim!

An important item helped provide some clarity for me.

vandenplas, reading this thread, is chomping at the bit to get back into the forum(because he wants a piece of Tim).

I sincerely apologize to MarketForum and Tim for letting this thread get way out of hand and regardless of what posters insist on, will not play a key role in exchanges similar to the later stages of this one.

I continue to learn new things about people, myself and the world and will use this as another learning experience.

Mike 

Can't decide if it's funny in a sad sort of way or sad in a funny sort of way that I still live in Vandy's mind rent free.   Certainly bizare.   But I do take confort in knowing he strongly disagrees with me.   

Thanks Tim!

vandenplas is what I have always referred to as a "predator troll" which is a step up in troll class to be more focused on "getting/targeting" specific individuals. 

I observed this on the forum over 2 years ago when noting that he chased, I think it was Tim/you, from the NTR forum to the trading forum because Tim wouldn't engage with him enough during a particular psssing match on the NTR forum, so he interrupted/barged into a trading discussion with points from the totally different topic/thread from the NTR thread. 

In reviewing what some of the most evil trolls do on the internet, I think that vandenplas is not really THAT bad.

He wouldn't try to find out where you live or wreck your life or anything like that. He did try to cause a mutiny on the forum for a month on a couple of occasions during Alex's reign though..............trying to get other posters to also not post for a month to show their displeasure. He got 0 people to follow him. This was back in the days when we had massive battles and personal attacking between the left and right.  It's what caused Alex to split the forums to create an NTR forum because half the people found it posting pollution for their trading ideas. 

Anyway, vandenplas came here entirely for those battles. He was like a kid in a candy store. With so many republicans, he had a field day attacking them and "rattling chains" as he would brag about.

 He's justified it recently as being needed to balance the views here. 

Hey, this would be great if those views were expressed like Carl did and Larry does. 

Joj is obviously a liberal but he too does a wonderful job representing that side, often using solid facts and points. 

vandy could care less about the topic or points. He just loves the opportunity to upset somebody else., while pretending to be representing something that he really cares about. 

Alex banned him something like 5 times then I did 3 times. I caught him the first time sneaking on using other handles. I knew it was him from the get go but let him go for a while because I figured he would behave well since posting like vandy would immediately expose him.

Then, he pretended to be his wife using his computer. Funny how alot of her views were just like his(when he's pretending to be good) and thats how I knew it was him..............there is only one vandy, who even in pretending couldn't hide it completely.

After he was banned for good for that one, he sent tons of messages claiming it was not fair for me to ban his wife and he  threatened to sue me. 

It's been over 2 years but he still follows MarketForum and sends regular comments. Until recently, he must have said that I should ban myself around 2 dozens times and had unkind remarks for me and the posters.

Recently though, with the disagreements that I've had on things like the George Floyd murder trial and the 2020 election or Trump, I am no longer the enemy and he wants to return. 

I tried to help vandy for years while Alex was moderator but he refused to agree to have personal email discussions with me on the occasions that I suggested that we could talk in private.

Then, I resorted to having fun with him, using the nickname vandentroll and giving him MarketForum psychological evaluations, which were actually serious about his issues.

After becoming moderator, I apologized for using that nickname, vandentrol and as moderator could no longer make fun of him but did try to help him with several personal emails............now that I had his email address.

I suggested that he get some counseling and made some specific suggestions on how he could improve his way of thinking but he was having no part of it.

Thats what I figured but it made me feel good because at least I tried.

I found this to be an especially enlightening site:

https://www.ipredator.co/predatory-trolls