Trump demands Georgia elections official overturn his defeat in hourlong call

OK funny how 90% of found votes always seem to go to Biden.

 

Wrong McConnell has been quite clear along with the other Republicans that the aid should be TARGETED to people unemployed due to COVID and unemployment is the best path to that. Why should someone who has not missed a days pay during COVID be given free money? In particular government workers who have been working all along and getting their paychecks, why should the get the largess of taxpayer money?

 

You one of the people out there abusing the police and storming the capitol?

 

So we’ll spend it and stimulate the economy.
Although I’m just mailing mine back since I owe the feds more than that anyway lol

 

It’s not funny, Trump’s a loser. He’s a chump. He’s disliked by a lot of people.

 

You think AOC is a moderate? LMAO.

I think it's the first time I've used the word communist in many months. I don't throw it around carelessly.

 

She believes in science, education and the constitution. Those who don’t, are wackos. That’s Trump and his extreme followers

 

I think you are trying to hard to parse words here. If you read the entire transcript he or his lawyers make a claim about the number of illegal ballots in one case out there and then note that the margin is only 11,779 and that they don't have to show EVERY illegal ballot they believe was cast just 11,779+1 and that triggers the GA law. Then they note other irregularities they believe would push it over that number, but that is all they need. If an investigation in to one of those irregularities and several of them showed 12,780 the result is the same. He and his staff, rightly or wrongly, believe that there are that many and MORE, but the number is just what would be required. And he never told or instructed or demanded the SecState create votes or void legal ballots.

So bottom line there was no crime committed just more of the hair on fair hyperbole of the left and MSM.

 

I am honored to engage in conversation with a former soldier in the Bundeswehr Heer, and esteemed member of the Bundeswehrverbandt. Ich grüsse Ihnen.

 

I served in the Bundeswehr and not the Heer, and I am neither a member of the Bundeswehrverband.

Keine Gruesse.

 

So absolutely no rhetoric coming from the 'squad' about socialism?

 

Defending that he committed a crime, yes. That doesn't mean that I think it's a good thing to be deluded.

 

How does that mean that they're not the minority in the Democratic Party?

 

How could he disrupt?

 

I meant no offense to you. In your post I responded to, you said, "... I served as a pro in the German Army in the 70s...." As we both know, the "Heer" is the Bundeswehr's Army, just as the "Luftwaffe" is the German Air Force, usw.

I must have made the mistaken assumption that, having served in the 1970's, you were retired from the German Army, and that you were therefore a member of the Bundeswehrverbandt. Too bad... I know some of these retirees well and they are truly noble, wonderful people.
Well, to close on a friendly note anyway, your English is very fluent. See you on 'down the line' here in the Forum. Alles Gute...Tschüß!

 

The “squad” is a boogie man made up by the right. You picked some very liberal people, and then claim they are the mainstream of the party and sell them as the great threat against america.

It’s laughingly transparent.

 

I did my job and when the contract ran out I became a civilian again. Being a pro, or having been is nothing special, its a job, even that mine was special.
I worked in the Bundeswehr, the Armed Forces of my country, nothing more.
I prefer the word work.
Nothing special.
I was drafted and than signed a contract to become a pro.
Big deal.

 

He used the size of his rallies as proof of fraud! And that was his strongest evidence!

 

Uh, no. That defense is known as argument from authority. It is just intellectual laziness. People choose to speak anonymously to avoid potential backlash. A source being anonymous does not necessarily make it either trustworthy or untrustworthy.

 

I know and thank you but I'm not the one that doesn't understand that.

 

I understood what he meant. It wasn't that hard.

 

It has to get to the courts first. When the crimes are overlooked they don't get to the courts.

 

You're comparing wearing a suit to someone that thinks an election was stolen without proof.....sure, that makes sense.

 

No

 

I'm sorry, is there an over/under line on when delusional becomes a problem? As far as your second question....not relevant. He didn't say that. Stay with facts.