DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Post your validated 2020 voter fraud cases here.

Yo everybody check out trump on Twitter.

This man woke up unhinged again lmfao

I’m not on that platform. Drop some of his wisdumb here for us to enjoy.

Just google it. You can view twitter feeds within a browser without an account.

And yes, the crazy dial was set a little higher today.

j/c:

18 states join Texas case seeking to overturn Biden win

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-bat...rturn-biden-win

Yet it's the same rehashed garbage courts have been dismissing over and over again.

and of course it's being led by a guy who was indicted on securities fraud charges. No surprise there.

Yep - lots of court motions and action.... STILL NO SIGN OF ANY FREAKING EVIDENCE.

I typically find that option 3 on that list typically elicits a response in kind, which then elicits a greater response, which then elicits another larger response, and then we get to where we are today.

The evidence is trump didnt win. What else do you need!!!!!!

j/c...

j/c...

True and 1 and 2 is basically enabling their ignorances. And we are still where we are regardless. With the trump supporter level of cray cray, they deserve to be mocked.

The party of law & order doesn’t seem to like law or order.

We are where we are because of 3, and the corrupt politicians from both sides perpetuate and feed into that dynamic.

I think fringe elements on both sides are "cray cray." I generally think - in line with you I'm sure - that many Trump supporters are misguided, buy into his emotionally-triggering propaganda, and/or just cannot come to confront the disturbing facts that come along with him.

However, let me ask you...if someone told you "Perfect, you are crazy and I can't believe you are such a whackadoodle. Pfffft!", what kind of a reaction would this elicit in you?
Would it cause you to rethink your processes or change your mind? (this is obviously hypothetical if you can't tell. I don't believe this about you, and I respect you and your opinions).

All I know is that when people have been able to change my minds or I have been able to change others minds, it comes from understanding them first, and then logically pointing out anomalies. It's usually not a quick process and very difficult. I also have to accept the fact I can't change everyone's mind, and that disparaging isn't making anything better.

That's JMHO and you obviously disagree, which is fine.

The problem is that neither talking to them normal or mocking them works.

So it ends up not mattering at all. It’s really hard to level with people who thought Obama was a foreign born Muslim, or that school shootings were false flag operations filled with crisis actors.

And as I’ve pointed out before, the way Trump supporters talk about liberals, one can easily conclude that they didn’t even view us as Americans.

Ya know, constant calling themselves “real patriots” or Americans.

It takes two to tango, but I can’t let this particular comment slide. You can’t reason with people who go “well if it ticks off the liberals, im all for it”

Looks where that sort of thinking has led to: them supporting authoritarianism and treating trump like some sort of Deity.

05, the confederacy itself didn’t last but half a decade. Look how long it’s lingered around.

How much you wanna bet trumpism makes the same run?

Here:

Rush Limbaugh Suggests Conservative States Are ‘Trending Toward Secession’

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/rush-limbaugh-suggests-conservative-states-155143765.html

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh said Wednesday that “there cannot be peaceful coexistence” between liberals and conservatives and right-leaning states are “trending toward secession.”

Asked about the chances that Republicans could win major national elections without the need for “taking back blue cities,” the host responded that his party had already done so in the past.

“I actually think that we’re trending toward secession,” he stated. “I see more and more people asking, ‘What in the world do we have in common with the people who live in, say, New York?'”

He questioned why Republicans outside of the blue cities would “believe that there is enough of us there” to even have a shot at winning in those areas, but was hesitant to say he actually agreed with the idea that the states should secede. (Note: President-elect Biden flipped five red states — Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Georgia — due to large turnouts in blue cities).

By his observation, the schools of thought around America’s two primary parties are just too different for voters or lawmakers to find common ground.

“There cannot be a peaceful coexistence of two completely different theories of life, theories of government, theories of how we manage our affairs,” he said. “We can’t be in this dire a conflict without something giving somewhere along the way so I know that there is a sizable and growing sentiment for people who believe that that is where we’re headed whether we want to go there or not.”

For the record, President-elect Biden flipped five red states to blue in November: Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Georgia.

_____

And lots not pretend conservatives don’t prop this dude up. He absolutely speaks for a huge chunk, if not the majority of that ideology.

How am I suppose to reason with this?

Lol Oh Rush...Red states are some of the poorest states in the union. Without federal help they’d be bankrupt. People who live in Confederate states will starve like they did in the civil war. Also they’ll have to buy their own vaccine if they survive.

I would expect a reason of why I’m such a wackadoddle and why you can’t believe me. A good example would be. “I can’t believe you because you support and voted for trump who is a well documented liar and cheat.”

I think I’ve seen you react differently...but okay.

I know where you’re coming from Swish and it’s hard to argue with what you’re saying. I don’t know if it’s as pervasive as what you’re saying. Maybe it is, but I haven’t seen it that bad yet. I do think there are those on the left in media that exacerbate the whackos to further their own narrative, but perhaps I’m wrong.

Aside from that, yeah the people you are talking about are nut jobs of course who can’t be reasoned with. My point though is that mocking them galvanizes them and even serves to legitimize them to other weak minded people. The thing I like to remember is that most people think that any attention - including negative attention - is better than no attention at all. If pundits go out there and attack an idiot like Rush Limbaugh for the stoopid stuff he’s saying, he’ll just have more material to talk about and more notoriety among the crazies.

Perhaps the conversation comes down to where the red lines of behavior are and that could be where we fundamentally disagree. My theory is that it is all bluster from a bunch of bullies who are incompetent cowards, because that’s what the man in charge is. I could be wrong and you could be right.

To me it's a "then and now" thing. I remember having conversations with conservatives. Debates on issues and idealism. You didn't always find common ground but they were at least civil conversations. But then Trump came along and they turned toe volume up to ten.

Let's just look at what has been posted on this board over the last day. A Michigan Democrat Cynthia Johnson was stripped of her committee duties because she lashed out after receiving racist death threats over the election outcome. I actually heard recordings of her being called the N word and threats were made of her being lynched.

Now I'm not trying to say her response was proper. But we had the usual suspects posting on here like she was crazy because of her reaction while refusing to address or call out the people making racist threats to her. You expect someone to have a civil conversation with those kind of whackamoles?

They get what they give. Like I've said before, if Cynthia Johnson had pointed out how she being treated and didn't fight back they would cvall her a snowflake. If she fights back they say she's crazy or unhinged. To hell with them.

I wanted to edit this to make something clear. There are still common sense Republicans. It's not a one size fits all. You can still have rational conversations with them. As such I try to do that when the opportunity arises. But let's look at the evidence here. Now I don't consider polls or surveys as being all that accurate. But they do serve as an indicator. As of now, after fifty losing court cases, still between 70% and 80% of republicans think the election was rigged. After fifty losing court cases.

Now please explain to me how you have a rational conversation with those people?

And he has no respect for them.

I don't think you can have a rational conversation with those types, as you infer.

My point is that I also don't think that people who are on the other side trying to "put them in their place" will help either. In fact, I think it makes it worse.

I've actually been thinking about this more since my initial post. I think two things need to happen:

1. People toting this radicalization are displaying traits of having an amygdala reaction that refuses them to come to terms with the truth, similar to denial being the first stage of grief. That, combined with displays of shear simple-mindedness makes this an easy group to take advantage of. I think we need to find the most efficient way to bring down those who are influencing them. I can't wait to get Trump out of office, and I hope he gets everything he deserves afterward.

2. It falls on people under the same banner to speak out. The situation we have is already supercharged, which is why I think disparagement doesn't help. I think many extremists feel validated when they make people on the other side mad. It's not the same though when someone on your own side speaks up. I don't consider myself Republican. I would say if you lined up all the issues, I would side with the conservatives on a majority of them, but not a large majority. I have people who are borderline fundamentalists in my own family, who I am concerned about. I used to not say anything, because it is so emotionally exhausting, but it is very interesting to see how they react angrily to something they see the Democrats doing, but then react differently when I speak up and show them that what the Democrats are doing makes sense. I have to continue to do a better job of using my place to advocate against extremism in a more firm - yet not disparaging - way. I think I've started to do that on the board, but I need to be better about it in real life.

I can't say that I blame you for your approach or effort. I just became exhausted with trying that long ago. I have simply found that zealots are impossible to reach.

I'm actually more of a moderate who appreciates moderate Republicans such as DeWine and our former governor here in Tennessee, Haslam.

My views do not actually align with either party. I'm in a position that neither the far left nor the Trumpians like my views. That's as close as I come with evidence that my views are where I want them to be.

With the wave of Trump I've found myself in a position where often times I've had to endorse people I would not most likely do under normal circumstances. I'll give you an example.

I like Biden due to one main thing. He was the most moderate candidate on the Democratic ticket along with Mayor Pete and Amy Klobuchar. Any of those three I would have happily endorsed. Sadly, had someone like Bernie or Elizabeth Warren won the nomination I would have still voted for them because, well, they weren't Trump. But I may have had to of held my nose at the voting booth.

Somebody needs a pardon?

FBI agents seek Texas attorney general records in Paxton probe

Federal agents served at least one subpoena Wednesday on the office of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in an ongoing investigation into allegations that Paxton abused his authority by helping a friend and campaign donor.

Three sources confirmed to the American-Statesman and KVUE-TV that FBI agents delivered the request for information to the agency’s headquarters on West 14th Street. The sources did not immediately know how many subpoenas were issued or what information FBI agents sought.

Federal authorities are investigating claims by former top Paxton aides that he used his position to aid Austin investor Nate Paul, whose offices were raided by the FBI last year.

FBI spokeswoman Michelle Lee said Thursday that she could not comment, and the bureau has not publicly confirmed an investigation.

Paxton said in a statement Thursday evening: "At all times, as in every matter, I ask my staff only to search for the truth, wherever it leads. That's my responsibility as Attorney General of Texas."

The issuance of a federal subpoena on a state agency, and especially involving the state’s top attorney, is a highly unusual move that likely would have required higher level approval from the U.S. Justice Department.

It came as Paxton has received national attention this week after filing a lawsuit to overturn presidential election results in four battleground states won by President-elect Joe Biden. The visit from federal agents also came the day before Paxton was among a dozen state attorneys general to meet with President Donald Trump in what officials described as a previously scheduled meeting to discuss a range of topics.

The allegations about Paxton surfaced in October when the former top officials issued a letter to Paxton saying they asked federal law enforcement authorities to investigate allegations of improper influence, abuse of office, bribery and other potential crimes.

The group contended that Paxton, against their recommendation, hired an outside attorney to investigate claims by Paul that the FBI violated his constitutional rights during the raid. Paxton's staff have said they had already reviewed Paul’s complaint and closed the matter after finding no wrongdoing.

Their complaint touched off weeks of political fallout for Paxton, including calls for his resignation by some fellow Republicans, and led to the launch of the federal investigation.

FBI agents and federal prosecutors in the weeks since have conducted interviews with anyone who might have information about Paxton’s involvement with Paul.

Four of the agency executives last month filed a whistleblower lawsuit that expanded upon their claims, saying that Paxton also improperly advocated for the release of investigative records to Paul and ordered staff to issue a legal opinion limiting foreclosure sales during the pandemic — allegedly to help Paul. The suit claimed that Paxton’s actions benefited himself and a woman with whom he was reportedly having an affair and had recommended for a job with Paul, according to the suit and an anonymously sourced report by The Associated Press.

The whistleblowers have since either left or been fired from the agency and accused Paxton of retaliation.

Paxton has said in a series of public statements that he denies violating any law. He said that he is a “fierce investigator and defender of individual rights in the face of potentially unreasonable and authoritarian actions.”

Paxton remains under indictment on 2015 charges after a Collin County grand jury indicted him on two counts of securities fraud and one count of failing to register with state securities regulators based on private business deals from 2011 and 2012.

Paxton has accused prosecutors of overzealous pursuit of the charges, particularly the fraud accusations — first-degree felonies that carry a maximum punishment of 99 years in prison.

The American-Statesman revealed in October that seven top aides to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton reported to federal authorities possible crimes committed by Paxton.

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/pol...ase/3886834001/

Of course Paxton is already under indictment on 3 felony state charges

The current Savior of the Republican party. Just another link in the Trump crime family.

I take offense to this statement as it is blatantly false, misleading, and WRONG.

But, carry on.

I would have to agree with arch to some extent. While I do agree with you, I think you made a blanket statement that certainly does not hold true for a lot of people that voted for Trump.

The fear and or hatred of immigrants was certainly one ingredient, but not the entire recipe. Some people wouldn't vote for a Democrat no matter who the GOP ran. I think that was the basis for a lot of it. And I think Trump is a prime example of it.

Trump lashed out and said nasty things. I think that's more of it than anything. He said the things they felt in a way they wanted to see it expressed. It's why trying to have a healthy dialogue with many of them is pointless. They like nasty, voted for nasty and endorse nasty. They love to see division and hatred spread by their top spokesman, the president.

That's the one thing you will always see, no matter which party it is. Their base will vote for them no matter what. It's those outside of the party base you need to look at. Who outside of their base are they catering to? In the case of Trump it was the nastiest. The racists, those that wanted to see a leader who said nasty things about the other side. Who targeted his opponents. A man who knew no bounds to punishing anyone who disagreed with him. A vindictive and spiteful human being. And that's what they got.

Luckily enough, there were still enough Americans left that didn't want to see that in the most powerful office in our country. Enough of them to stand up to this tyrant to vote him out of office. Now the only weapon they have left is to undermine democracy in a political coup that would destroy our democracy as we know it.

I agree with you about Biden being the right candidate at this time. Trump and his cronies weren't going to convince the over forty crowd that Biden was some socialist even though tried that same tired BS yet again. Independent voters who wanted to see some form of stability in The White House saw Biden as that moderating force.

As we've seen to this point, Biden isn't going to bring in some far left cabinet. He's looking more at experience and track record. After seeing a brain surgeon in charge of Housing and Urban development, a woman who is anti public education in charge of public education and a former oil lobbyist in charge of the EPA, people said enough is enough.

But let's not fool, ourselves here. As long as we're under the electoral college system where your vote has subjective value depending on where you live, we are always under constant threat that this will happen, and most likely will happen again.

I agree with you that Pete and Amy aren't ready yet. I was simply pointing out candidates with which I agreed with enough to happily support.

Pardons are for federal crimes not state crimes.

Exactly. Yesterday it was the federal government who issued the subpoena on Paxton's office. That is a federal investigation.

He is already under indictment for three state crimes. So far he has been able to delay his state trial for five years.

Trump can stop the federal investigation but there's nothing he can do about the state charges.

The big thing is that Trump had to run on his record this time around. I think there was a large group of people that voted for Trump based on, "eh... how bad can it be?" The context behind this is the other option is Hillary, who was the face of the status quo that so many were just done with.

Tell you what . . . we finally found something other than LYING that Trump is good at. I mean really, really good at... LOSING.

Trump tweeted “The SCOTUS let us down”. They didn’t let U.S. down.

Weeks after the election and still NO validated voter fraud cases.... I wonder what republicans are all upset about..

I'm not sure about restoring anything with half the country living in an alternative reality based in misinformation, while simultaneously living in our world.