Free Republic

> Do YOU seriously doubt that the election was stolen in 2020?

Yes, I very seriously doubt it.

> Did I say that? NO. Not only NO but FUQ NO. I really don’t like trolls twisting my words so they can argue against the straw position.

I apologize. It was not my intention to twist your words. Here's what you wrote that led me that that interpretation.

[...]then you’ve made a bit of a case that the man went from criticizing the Electoral College to relying on it in 2016. That reinforces my perspective as a straightforward constitutionalist.

Perhaps, I misunderstood your meaning.

> He gave a rat’s ass in 2016.

He accepted the electoral vote in 2016 because he won. If he hadn't won, he would not have accepted it. Do you seriously doubt this?

> But lookie here, you’re wandering into neverTrumpism land and that level of bullshiite has a tendency to get one zotted.

I'm not terribly worried about that. I'm am ultimately only accountable to God. But I think Jim would do well to keep a few of us around because we're going to be the ones to pick up the pieces after Trump and his followers have burned the house down.

> Gosh, would that qualify as a “constitutional conservative awakening at 68 years of age?”

Gosh, no. That would qualify as Trump doing or saying whatever he thinks is in his own interest without regard for the law, moral principles, etc.

> Okay, assuming what you wrote is true [BIG FReeping ASSumption] then you’ve made a bit of a case that the man went from criticizing the Electoral College to relying on it in 2016. That reinforces my perspective as a straightforward constitutionalist.

Are you serious? You really think he was criticizing the electoral college in 2012, but relied on it (because he lost the popular vote in 2016) because he had some sort of constitutional conservative awakening at 68 years of age? Give me a break. He will do or say whatever he thinks will work for him, and he couldn’t give a rat’s ass about the constitution. He had no problem with the outcome in 2016 (despite his losing the popular vote) because he won. If he had lost in 2016 he would have claimed fraud. If he had won the popular vote 2016 but lost the electoral vote he would have called the electoral system a sham. He will do or say whatever he thinks is in his interest.

OK, good. So now you accept that Trump posted those tweets? If so, do you find those tweets at all troubling? Note that Trump wasn't saying the 2012 election was fraudulent. He was saying that the electoral college was "phoney" and was calling for a revolution because he initially believed that Romney won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote.

Trump is no conservative, though he might play one on TV for as long as it suits him.

> He just gave you proof. Show us on Twitter where those comments are.

Please. You do know that it is possible to delete tweets, right?

You can find a broadcast which aired on Nov. 6th, 2012 where Brian Williams discusses Trump's tweets at the link below:

NBC's Brian Williams Slams Donald Trump's Election Night Tweets

Here's an article from Nov. 7th, 2012 discussing Donald Trump's reaction to Brian Williams' televised comments that I cited above:

Trump laces into Brian Williams

Donald Trump deleted some controversial tweets in wake of President Barack Obama winning reelection but he also lashed out on Wednesday against NBC News anchor Brian Williams for criticizing him.

NBC News anchor Brian Williams slammed Trump on Election Night for his tweeting, saying that Trump had “driven well past the last exit to relevance and veered into something closer to irresponsible.” [...]

Brian, if I’m “well past the last exit to relevance” how come you spent so much time reading my tweets last night? @ nbcnightlynews— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

On Tuesday night, Trump’s Twitter tirade blasted the Electoral College and bemoaned the country’s direction. One of the deleted Tweets? “Phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!” Another: “Votes equals a loss… revolution!” [...]

Note that Trump never denies posting those tweets. It is really amazing the mental acrobatics people will go through to deny reality.

> Twitter puts timestamps under comments dumbass. Lame try!

I guess it depends on how you're viewing it. You can find plenty of screenshots of tweets from 2012 with no timestamps.

See the Evolution of the Twitter Profile Over the Past 10 Years

Maybe you're too young to remember? But there are plenty of articles from 2012 still up on the web that discuss Trump's rant calling for a revolution over the results of the "phoney electoral college", for example:

Trump hastily backtracks over calls for a 'revolution' after branding Obama's re-election a 'disgusting injustice'

• Trump ranted on Twitter when it became clear Obama would win election
• Later deleted tweet calling for a revolution
• NBC's Brian Williams lashed out against Trump on air, saying he had 'driven well past the last exit to relevance'
• Trump then attacked Williams and his 'boring' newscasts

> Says China will have to pay for the virus.

Shouldn’t we first get Mexico to pay for the wall?

> And don’t get fooled by fake tweets, please.

Those tweets are not fake. This was widely reported in 2012. There are lots of articles from 2012 still around that discuss these tweets of Trump.

> After four years of his presidency, can you really still say “definitely not a conservative”?

A person does not changes their stripes so late in life. He was calling for a “revolution” because the 2012 election was decided in the manner laid out in Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Sorry, he is not a conservative. He will say and do whatever he thinks serves him best at the moment.

> You know those aren’t real, right?

No, do you have proof?

Here's Trump calling for a "revolution" and asking people to "march on Washinton" in 2012 after he thought Obama won the election (i.e. won the electoral vote -- the way elections are decided in our country) but lost the popular vote (Obama, in fact, won both):



If he is not an idiot, then he is definitely not a conservative.

> And he did. He never wanted to see it again. And he won’t. It was his deal and now it’s a done deal.

Well then respect to Kyle for that choice. As a sensitive young man who, through some poor choices, placed himself in a position where he found it necessary to take two people’s lives to protect himself, I can’t imagine why he would want to ever see that gun again.

> This is where i’m at. I’ve been trying to think of one of his songs that i’ve heard, and I keep drawing a blank.

Seriously? He’s got some good tunes.

Down by the River
https://youtu.be/Up0dI-QpqF8

Heart of Gold
https://youtu.be/Eh44QPT1mPE

Harvest Moon
https://youtu.be/n2MtEsrcTTs

Old Man
https://youtu.be/An2a1_Do_fc

Hey Hey My My
https://youtu.be/igxfLA3u8xc

I don’t care for all his music, but he’s got some good songs.

I’m a bit surprised to learn this restriction is still in place. I thought it had been lifted during the Obama admin. In any case, I’m glad to see it is still in place and I hope it stays in place.

> I knew the election was a fraud the next morning. Trump's words were never a factor in forming my view of it.

Well, Trump has been saying the elections were rigged or a sham since at least 2012. No matter how he lost, he was never going to accept the outcome.

Here are Trump's tweets after Romney lost to Obama in 2012 (note: Trump made these tweets before he realized that Obama had also won the popular vote):



Sounds familiar doesn't it?

Trump calling for a "revolution" because he thought Obama won the electoral votes but lost the popular vote (which was false -- Obama won both.) Any one who thinks Trump is a conservative needs to read Article II section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Then, you have Trump in 2016 losing the popular vote to Hillary, but winning the electoral vote...

What about Emmett Brown from Back to the Future?

I’d say Rod Serling is a possible candidate, though not as strong as Mr. Roarke in my opinion. Thanks, by the way, for fixing my poor spelling and not tormenting me about it! ;-)

What about Mr. Rork from Fantasy Island? Very likely a Time Lord, in my opinion.

> You literally cannot keep your lies straight. When you said "I have to admit that it does look suspicious", you were knew you were commenting from watching the entirety of all the SoS-released State Farm Arena video, because that was the subject matter of the very thread in which you posted!

What I actually said was, "I have to admit that it does look suspicious, but I’m not ready to convict." You have a tendency to take snippets of things I have posted out of context. It is a bit like what Giuliani and the rest Trump's legal time did with the security cam video at State Farm.

As far as your assertion that I'm a liar, I can tell you that I have never lied about any of these matters regarding the election. So far you have not caught me in a single lie. And you won't, because I haven't lied. I only became aware that the GA SoS had made public many hours of the security video when Gabe Sterling announced this during his (factually correct, as far as I can ascertain) press conference on Jan. 4th. You should know this because you apparently have gone through my entire posting history. In any case, here's what I wrote on Jan. 1 at 3:09:34 AM on that same thread:

I would also like to see the full security video released. Trump’s lawyers have had it for almost a month. Why not release it to the public so we can see it in its entirety? We can then see for our own eyes when the ballots were placed under the table and by whom? The question about the chain of custody of the ballots came up during the Dec 3rd GA Judiciary Subcommittee meeting and at the time Traci Picks claimed they hadn’t had enough time to make the determination (which I don’t believe.) They’ve had plenty of time now, so why don’t we know yet? Why haven’t we seen the full video? The GA SoS investigator claims that the ballots were placed under the table around 10pm with the state monitor, media and election observers present. If that’s not the case, then why don’t the Trump lawyers refute this with footage from the security video?

Also, on Jan. 3rd at 4:38:28PM, in response to a poster asking if I had seen the video of the alleged multiple scanning of ballots, I posted the following:

Yes, I did. I admit that looks suspicious, but I’m not ready to convict. But for the sake of argument let’s say each of the two ladies scanned their stack four times (if they had done more Trump’s team would have certainly pointed it out) and all those votes went to Biden. Given the time it took to scan (and the max rate of the Dominion machines — 3000 ballots/hr I believe) this would have been at most a few hundred notes. Definitely not enough to swing the note. In any case, I’d like to see the entire video so I can see whether that behavior was really out of the ordinary or not.

It should be clear from this that I had not seen the many hours of video that was (at some point on or before Jan. 4th) released by the GA SoS at that time that I wrote, "I have to admit that it does look suspicious, but I’m not ready to convict" on Dec. 31st.

> Imagine that, Bob Cheeley called it like it is, and there you were to back him up, "I have to admit that it does look suspicious".

See how you take what I say out of context to score points? It is really not very honest, is it? We are not politicians (at least I'm not.) There's no reason we need to engage in this sort of dishonesty just because we don't agree with one another.

The GA Senate "hearings" on the election (especially the second one) seemed to me to be little more than televised shows in front an almost entirely friendly audience of GA state legislators where Trump's legal team could put forth misinformation with essentially no push back. Bob Cheeley's presentation was, in my opinion, ridiculous -- as bad, if not worse, than the presentation Tracy Pick gave in the first "hearing."

> What may be less well-known among Freepers — but not for long — is that you are a braggart who boasts about having trolled FreeRepublic under a different name before being banned.

I was never banned from FR. That account is still around. I just abandoned it many years ago and no longer have the email address associated with it. What I posted on that account was pretty standard Freeper fare for that time: anti-illegal immigration, anti-radical Islam, anti-homosexual marriage, anti-PRC (a little ahead of my time on this one), pro-military, pro-law enforcement, etc.