The Lawsuits

[Argus]

Trump has been raising money by telling people how important the upcoming Georgia senate races are. Only problem is he's not spending a cent of that money on the races!

President Donald Trump has invoked the Georgia Senate runoffs dozens of times over the past month while raising money for his $100 million-plus “leadership” political committee — but has not reported spending a dime on those races.

“It would suggest that the PAC is blatantly lying to its supporters to raise money that President Trump could use for his own personal benefit,” said Robert Maguire, a campaign finance expert with the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “We’ve seen lots of scam PACs over the years, but never one tied so closely to a president.”

“Same old song,” said Joe Walsh, a former congressman who unsuccessfully ran against Trump for the 2020 GOP presidential nomination. “It’s what he is. It’s what he does. It’s all a con. It’s all a lie. It’s all a grift. And sadly, millions continue to fall for it.”

 

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trump-georgia-senate-runoff-save-america_n_5fdbc7fbc5b650b99adb025b?ri18n=true

 

[Boges]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Her twenty years as a Republican was a masquerade?

Conservatives usually like to brag about being a "Big Tent" party. 

Now they seem to be a very small tent. 

The "Whatever Trump says is Right" tent. 

[Infidel Dog]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Her twenty years as a Republican was a masquerade?

Yes. As was John McCain's masquerade and as is Mitt Romney's.

It goes back to the tea party, I think. It's the conflict of equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome.

Before the tea party one can see the Republican Party as having 3 arms. The quiet majority of populist conservatives, Libertarians and the corporate elite with its passengers.

The people are 'rights of the individual' types. That's the traditional or conservative belief. Conservatives and Libertarians aren't on board with each other on everything but they are on that. 

But in the early Obama days it starts to become clear to the hoi poloi that the guys on top are going in a different direction and the term "RINO" surfaces on the quiet majority's tongue.

It's equality versus equity. The people still believe in individuals with equal opportunity to pursue happiness, but it's starting to become evident to them that many of their leaders are joining the other side in thinking, "NO. We've got a better idea. We'll decide who's equal and we'll develop programs to decide for you what you need and how you'll be allowed to get what we'll allow you to have. Oh...and we'll need more taxes to do it."

The corporates and their toadies begin to leave the Republican party by posturing this attitude - if they were ever in it. They chose to have the populace below governed (by them)for what they called equality. That was outcome over opportunity. Some stayed. You start to see it with Bush, then Obama clarifies the lines and those who won't ignore the obvious start to notice who's really on the side of the American idea by noticing who or what no longer seems on board with it.

On the other hand, those who chose to stick with, or conserve, the idea of equality of opportunity, those remained the Republicans, in the ideal of Lincoln and the original Republicans. Those who didn't became known as "RINOs" or Republicans In Name Only.

[Michael Hardner]

15 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

 It goes back to the tea party, I think. It's the conflict of equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome.

I thought the Tea Party disappeared after Trump was elected ???

If not, then why didn't they oppose his deficits ?  @Argus help me out here ?

[Argus]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I thought the Tea Party disappeared after Trump was elected ???

If not, then why didn't they oppose his deficits ?  @Argus help me out here ?

Because they were co opted fairly early on from being outraged at the money given out to corporations to being enthusiastic supporters of corporate America. That was partly because they were inexperienced, zealous outsiders challenging established republicans in the primaries (which, because of gerrymandering, is how you beat them), and the way they got the money for their challenge was corporate America, which wanted them to demand tax cuts.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Argus

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

Conservatives usually like to brag about being a "Big Tent" party. 

Now they seem to be a very small tent. 

The "Whatever Trump says is Right" tent. 

The Republican Party is not conservative in any sense I can see. They're certainly not social conservatives or they wouldn't support a lifelong gambler, whoremonger and adulterer so enthusiastically. They're not fiscal conservatives or they wouldn't have run up the deficit so high - even before covid hit.

[Infidel Dog]

13 minutes ago, Argus said:

Because they were co opted fairly early on from being outraged at the money given out to corporations to being zealous supporters of corporate America.

Define Corporate America. Would the corporations of silicone valley be Corporate America? How about the Corporate Media? Or what we can see as the corporate woke celebrating wokeness in their commericials or supporting cancel culture or the corporations benefiting from lockdowns at the cost of small businesses. Are those the corporates you're talking about?

If you're talking about the "co opting" by those corporates you must be talking about the Democratic Party.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Argus]

3 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Define Corporate America. Would the corporations of silicone valley be Corporate America? How about the Corporate Media? Or what we can see as the corporate woke celebrating wokeness in their commericials or supporting cancel culture. Are those the corporates you're talking about?

If you're talking about the "co opting" by those corporates you must be talking about the Democratic Party.

If you think the Republicans aren't co-opted by corporate America you really didn't understand the purpose for that massive tax cut last year. It was, as most commentators admitted, a reward to the 'donor class' - ie the wealthy, ie, the people who own those corporations. Notice how the corporate tax cuts were permanent but the personal tax cuts expire next year? It was, as one person said "A kiss on the cheek" for the donor class. And they didn't mean the cheek above the collar...

By the way, Trump managed to get a special tax cut for real estate developers inserted at the last minute...

Edited December 18, 2020 by Argus

[Infidel Dog]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

If you think the Republicans aren't co-opted by corporate America you really didn't understand the purpose for that massive tax cut last year. It was, as most commentators admitted, a reward to the 'donor class' - ie the wealthy, ie, the people who own those corporations. Notice how the corporate tax cuts were permanent but the personal tax cuts expire next year? It was, as one person said "A kiss on the cheek" for the donor class. And they didn't mean the cheek above the collar...

The claim is the average family benefited 5-6 thousand dollars from those tax cuts.

Did businesses (even small ones) also benefit? I would hope so. That's how a conservative economy is supposed to work. 

[Argus]

Just now, Infidel Dog said:

The claim is the average family benefited 5-6 thousand dollars from those tax cuts.

Did businesses (even small ones) also benefit? I would hope so. That's how a conservative economy is supposed to work. 

If you know so little about it why are you asking some guy on the internet who doesn't even live in your country? As actively interested as you seem to be in politics you ought to know all this stuff.

[Infidel Dog]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

If you know so little about it why are you asking some guy on the internet who doesn't even live in your country? As actively interested as you seem to be in politics you ought to know all this stuff.

What are you talking about?

Edited December 18, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Cannucklehead]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/wh-adviser-navarro-releases-report-election-fraud-swing-victory-to-trump?_amp=true&__twitter_impression=true

 

Director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy Peter Navarro published a lengthy report Thursday outlining several examples of voting irregularities that are “more than sufficient” to swing the outcome of the election in President Trump’s favor.

 

?

 

Same guy who was arguing with Fauci, claiming that he's a "social scientist" and knows more about medication.  Seriously?  Can I call myself an expert on astronomy and nuclear physics now?   

[Infidel Dog]

Oh wait Argus...I think I see what you're saying.

It's on this specifically, I assume.

Quote

Did businesses (even small ones) also benefit?

My mistake. I meant to say "Didn't." The question was meant to appear rhetorical.

I'm curious, why you don't think I'm from your country though? Aren't you Canadian? I assumed you were.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Infidel Dog]

6 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/wh-adviser-navarro-releases-report-election-fraud-swing-victory-to-trump?_amp=true&__twitter_impression=true

 

Director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy Peter Navarro published a lengthy report Thursday outlining several examples of voting irregularities that are “more than sufficient” to swing the outcome of the election in President Trump’s favor.

 

?

 

Same guy who was arguing with Fauci, claiming that he's a "social scientist" and knows more about medication.  Seriously?  Can I call myself an expert on astronomy and nuclear physics now?   

OK, so you don't like this Navarro guy because he said something bad about one of your heroes.

Good for you.

Now show us why we must ignore the six irregularities in the election he outlines in his graph below:

Looks correct to me.

[Cannucklehead]

2 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

OK, so you don't like this Navarro guy because he said something bad about one of your heroes.

Good for you.

Now show us why we must ignore the six irregularities in the election he outlines in his graph below:

Looks correct to me.

Well, the courts disagreed.  But I guess he knows more than them about the law too?  He probably knows more about everything than everyone. 

Stable genius 2.0!  ?

[Infidel Dog]

The courts do not disagree. They have yet to look at the evidence.

[Cannucklehead]

3 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

The courts do not disagree. They have yet to look at the evidence.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9065085/amp/Were-not-going-dude-Trade-advisor-Peter-Navarro-produces-election-fraud-report.html

 

But he also indicated he has a sideline in closely following the 'Kraken' lawsuits that so far have racked up more than 50 losses in court.

'I’ve literally read thousands of affidavits. I’ve read every single court case. I’ve looked at all the testimony that’s been done at the state legislature level,' Navarro said on the call to tout his election work product.

He drafted an analysis on the subject, and discussed it on a webinar Thursday where he was introduced as acting in his 'personal capacity.'  

 

Oh but they have.  

 

Anyone else want some calamari?  ?

[Boges]

32 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

OK, so you don't like this Navarro guy because he said something bad about one of your heroes.

Good for you.

Now show us why we must ignore the six irregularities in the election he outlines in his graph below:

Looks correct to me.

Nothing in that article is proof. It's just a compilation of all the conspiracy theories we've already heard. None proven in court. 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Cannucklehead said:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/wh-adviser-navarro-releases-report-election-fraud-swing-victory-to-trump?_amp=true&__twitter_impression=true

Director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy Peter Navarro published a lengthy report Thursday outlining several examples of voting irregularities that are “more than sufficient” to swing the outcome of the election in President Trump’s favor.

Many of Navarro’s claims are either anecdotal or widely debunked: He pointed to Trump’s early election-night leads in several states later won by Biden (which was due to late counting of mail-in ballots, not fraud), a suspicious-looking surveillance tape from Atlanta (local Republican officials say it showed normal vote-counting), and alleged malfeasance in a Detroit counting center (a judge called the allegations “not credible”).

Navarro criticized courts for rejecting the legal arguments advanced by Trump and his allies, castigated media outlets for stating there is no evidence of widespread fraud, and called for investigations (Attorney General William Barr said his department is investigating irregularities and has found no evidence of election-reversing fraud).

Note, Navarro has no legal training, but still criticized the courts for rejecting legal arguments...?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2020/12/17/white-house-advisor-peter-navarro-releases-dubious-voter-fraud-report/?sh=452788ae1205

Edited December 18, 2020 by Argus

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Cannucklehead said:

But he also indicated he has a sideline in closely following the 'Kraken' lawsuits that so far have racked up more than 50 losses in court.

'I’ve literally read thousands of affidavits. I’ve read every single court case. I’ve looked at all the testimony that’s been done at the state legislature level,' Navarro said on the call to tout his election work product.

He drafted an analysis on the subject, and discussed it on a webinar Thursday where he was introduced as acting in his 'personal capacity.' 

Doesn't this guy have a job? Apparently he works as little as his fat assed boss. You'd never know he was hired after Trump's son in law scanned Amazon looking for people who had written books about China and trade.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Argus

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

The courts do not disagree. They have yet to look at the evidence.

What, none of them? Even the Trump appointees?

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

Oh wait Argus...I think I see what you're saying.

It's on this specifically, I assume.

My mistake. I meant to say "Didn't." The question was meant to appear rhetorical.

The people who profited most from the tax cut are the wealthy and corporate America. The ordinary Americans who had their taxes cut will see them rise again, and it will be up to them to pay off the resulting debt or suffer decreasing services.

Quote

I'm curious, why you don't think I'm from your country though? Aren't you Canadian? I assumed you were.

You act so frenzied over this I thought you were an American. I mean, even Bush-Cheney has largely given up.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Argus

[Infidel Dog]

2 hours ago, Cannucklehead said:

Well, the courts disagreed.  But I guess he knows more than them about the law too? 

I don't know and neither do you. Neither does Argus. We've yet to see an evidentiary hearing before a court.

I do know what Narvarro is talking about with his six irregularities. I'd have no problem debating them with that kid on Forbes who has the same name as Joe Walsh the well known conservative.

But seeing as you guys have set the bar for this debate at personal smears let's talk about young Joe Walsh. He graduated college last year so a belated congratulations kid.

This isn't his first experience arguing against the obvious using the ol' "nothing to see here."He know doubt learned that from his social warrior, prog profs. He also told us there was nothing to see here on the Hunter Biden laptop story. His arguments were just as good there. As we know now, they were proven to be wrong.

Read about it here:

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3911627/posts

I like the comments:

Quote

Joe Walsh is a scorpion riding the GOP across the pond.

“Forbes” ceased being Forbes magazine long ago. It’s a click bait farm now. I read they pay their writers basically nothing.

Who owns them now, the Chicoms?

Yep. Forbes is another Chicom publication.

You have a better chance of AOC coming out as Republican than you do of finding a non Marxist writer at Forbes. They have decayed that much

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3911627/posts

 

Edited December 18, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Infidel Dog]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

Trump has been raising money by telling people how important the upcoming Georgia senate races are. Only problem is he's not spending a cent of that money on the races!

Are you sure about that?

Ask the kid contributing to Huff Po you're quoting who paid for the rally Trump made down to Georgia. I watched it? Loeffler and Perdue were on stage with the Donald.

[Cannucklehead]

4 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

I don't know and neither do you. Neither does Argus. We've yet to see an evidentiary hearing before a court.

I do know what Narvarro is talking about with his six irregularities. I'd have no problem debating them with that kid on Forbes who has the same name as Joe Walsh the well known conservative.

But seeing as you guys have set the bar for this debate at personal smears let's talk about young Joe Walsh. He graduated college last year so a belated congratulations kid.

This isn't his first experience arguing against the obvious using the ol' "nothing to see here."He know doubt learned that from his social warrior, prog profs. He also told us there was nothing to see here on the Hunter Biden laptop story. His arguments were just as good there. As we know now, they were proven to be wrong.

Read about it here:

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3911627/posts

I like the comments:

 

They were dismissed because the courts know that there was no legitimacy to it.  Yes there are some people here and there on both sides that will always try to cheat the system, but that doesn't really amount to anything significant.