tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699266088923868373.post3877969868515066349..comments2024-03-28T21:45:05.911-07:00Comments on The Disciplinary Couples Club: Brief Hiatus and Christmas ThoughtsDan - A Disciplined Hubbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01588294648648656600noreply@blogger.comBlogger185125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699266088923868373.post-22306377118178366042020-12-31T19:00:31.958-08:002020-12-31T19:00:31.958-08:00Your blog, your last word. Only fair.
Happy New Ye...Your blog, your last word. Only fair.<br />Happy New Year, Dan, may there be much spanking in our future!juliesphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02856609580815309314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699266088923868373.post-61529492371708642912020-12-31T15:52:26.408-08:002020-12-31T15:52:26.408-08:00That's the heart of the problem -- this idea t...That's the heart of the problem -- this idea that you are qualified to "engage with the evidence directly" while having no actual expertise in election law. Half the "fraud" your side bitches about is stuff that is perfectly legal under election law. Like all the random bitching about people voting in GA or PA when they supposedly live somewhere else. Well, that is perfectly legal in many, many cases. College students. Military personnel. People on out-of-state job assignments. What makes some of it so facially ridiculous is some of the "evidence" you are talking about includes people voting by mail from another state, when Trump votes by mail, from his actual residence in DC in elections in Florida! Particularly given the breakdown in time Trump spends between DC, NY and Florida, he would almost certainly be on the list of supposedly fraudulent votes if your experts contested votes in Florida! <br /><br />At the end of the day, your unwillingness to acknowledge facts does not rise to any legally relevant "dispute." As Senator Sasse put it very eloquently and in terms that pretty much anyone who is actually looking at things objectively can understand:<br /><br />"5. BUT ISN’T IT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO INVESTIGATE THESE CLAIMS MORE THOROUGHLY? DOESN’T IT HELP GUARANTEE THE LEGITIMACY OF OUR ELECTORAL PROCESS?<br /><br />I take this argument seriously because actual voter fraud – and worries about voter fraud – are poison to self-government. So yes, we should investigate all specific claims, but we shouldn’t burn down the whole process along the way. Right now we are locked in a destructive, vicious circle:<br /><br />Step 1: Allege widespread voter fraud. <br />Step 2: Fail to offer specific evidence of widespread fraud. <br />Step 3: Demand investigation, on grounds that there are “allegations” of voter fraud.<br /><br />I can’t simply allege that the College Football Playoff Selection Committee is “on the take” because they didn’t send the Cornhuskers to the Rose Bowl, and then – after I fail to show evidence that anyone on the Selection Committee is corrupt – argue that we need to investigate because of these pervasive “allegations” of corruption. <br /><br />We have good reason to think this year’s election was fair, secure, and law-abiding. That’s not to say it was flawless. But there is no evidentiary basis for distrusting our elections altogether, or for concluding that the results do not reflect the ballots that our fellow citizens actually cast." <br /><br />Well said, Senator Sasse. I'm not going to lose any sleep over the fact that a whole bunch of you get stuck on Step 3 and don't get the difference between speculative analyses by self-professed experts and material evidence sufficient to actually overturn an election.<br /><br />With that, if you want to retort, please go ahead and I'll probably publish it just because I am a magnanimous guy who always wants to let the losing side have the last word. But, after that, I am done with this thread and onto 2021.Dan - A Disciplined Hubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588294648648656600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699266088923868373.post-48837849046514795382020-12-31T13:20:13.877-08:002020-12-31T13:20:13.877-08:00I read all your links and was unimpressed. All of ...I read all your links and was unimpressed. All of that "critical analysis" amounts to a hill of beans after you actually see and engage with the evidence directly. There's a great section in the GA hearing where they "debunk the debunkers", including the recounts that keep recounting the same fraudulent ballots without actually auditing or doing any forensic examination of where they came from.<br /><br />I just read the Sasse statement. He alleges there is not evidence of sufficient fraud to overturn the election. I think that is clearly in dispute. Let's look at GA as an example. See earlier vid. What Sasse has to say, when applied to GA, is clearly in error.juliesphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02856609580815309314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699266088923868373.post-62497845157062564302020-12-31T10:32:27.196-08:002020-12-31T10:32:27.196-08:00This is probably about the most balanced analysis ...This is probably about the most balanced analysis I've seen on where things stand after all the election challenges, issued this morning by a Republican Senator who I don't always agree with, but who I've always believed genuinely believes in the democratic system. He addresses each swing state that is disputed and why the courts dismissed each challenge, mainly on the grounds that even if you granted every single thing that Trump was actually arguing in court (which has always been way, way more limited than the hysterical out of court statements by his lawyers, who know they would face sanctions for making similarly unsupported accusations in court) it simply would not overturn the election in even a singe state, let alone the multiple states that would be required to actually flip the results. Though, I'm sure you'll just dismiss the analysis with a quip because this particular Senator isn't one of the Trump fanboys and has, from time to time, shown some independence:<br /><br />https://www.facebook.com/SenatorSasse/posts/3517705981660655Dan - A Disciplined Hubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588294648648656600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699266088923868373.post-59340970964983303852020-12-31T09:44:58.754-08:002020-12-31T09:44:58.754-08:00See, this is why I just don't know why I keep ...See, this is why I just don't know why I keep having these discussions with you. Those articles are doing a critical examination of your "source material" and of the people who provided or analyzed that material. They are directly relevant to the arguments you are making based on your preferred source material. As usual, you absolutely refuse to address things like the actual outcome of the recounts the Trump campaign demanded, all of which were overseen by a Republican governor and Republican secretary of state. You absolutely refuse to engage at any level on issues around the quality or materiality of what you keep insisting is high quality evidence of fraud. It's just a total waste of time, because you allege all this great testimony exists, and when I point you to critical examination of that testimony you insist that I either need to (a) ignore the expert examination of the evidence by real experts on election law and procedure and just do it myself even though neither you nor I are experts on election law or election procedure; or (b) ignore established media outlets on both the left and the right just because, in your world view, anything with actual processes and procedures and relevant expertise is "mainstream" or "swampy." Any argument that begins with rejecting real expert analysis precisely because it is being done by real experts is just dumb, and it makes debating you a total waste of time.Dan - A Disciplined Hubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588294648648656600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699266088923868373.post-31810601063998386462020-12-31T09:19:45.852-08:002020-12-31T09:19:45.852-08:00Look at the source material on the video. You are ...Look at the source material on the video. You are reading a bunch of recycled news reports with an agenda. Use the source, Luke!juliesphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02856609580815309314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699266088923868373.post-81636149331287010062020-12-31T09:15:01.579-08:002020-12-31T09:15:01.579-08:00I'm happy to look at it, though Georgia is an ...I'm happy to look at it, though Georgia is an odd one for you to focus on, given that of all the challenged states, the allegations of fraud in Georgia are the ones that have been tested over and over in procedures demanded by Trump, and each time the results have confirmed Biden's win. Trump demanded a hand recount. He got one. It confirmed the Biden win. He demanded a machine recount. He got one. It confirmed the Biden win. He demanded a signature check. It found a whopping TWO mismatches out of the thousands and thousands and thousands of votes cast. <br /><br />https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/532042-georgia-signature-audit-finds-no-fraud-in-presidential-election<br /><br />The congressional hearings at both the federal and state level have been pretty much a joke, with "star" witnesses who have zero credibility and who have been forced to eat most of their testimony and who, in the Georgia hearing, were shielded from any examination by the Democrats on the panel. It's also one that really illustrates the quality of lawyers and experts on the Trump team and, frankly, the mindset of his lead people. A single Georgia lawmaker who actually looked at the underlying voter lists completely shredded one of the Trump experts who made claims of supposedly dead voters and other supposed irregularities using actual examples:<br /><br />https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/heres-what-happened-when-a-georgia-lawmaker-scrutinized-the-trump-campaigns-list-of-allegedly-illegal-votes/<br /><br />"Giuliani called out several Black election workers in Fulton County, alleging that they were “passing around USB ports as if they were vials of heroin or cocaine.” He also referred to some election workers by name while questioning their actions — despite repeated pleas from state election officials to protect the safety of election workers."<br /><br />"House Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Shaw Blackmon, a Republican, did not offer an opportunity for lawmakers to question Giuliani."<br /><br />The lay and expert witnesses testimony offered in support of actual fraud in Georgia, both in court and in the hearings you reference, have pretty much fallen apart under the most gentle of critical examination. Much of the alleged "evidence" supporting fraudulent votes has turned out to reflect an appalling ignorance of election law by the people offering the analyses and factual support, and also an appalling lack of qualifications among Trump's supposedly "expert" witnesses:<br /><br />https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/heres-how-georgias-lawyers-destroyed-sidney-powells-wildly-unqualified-election-malfeasance-experts/<br /><br />https://www.register-herald.com/cnhi_network/georgia-rips-trumps-voter-fraud-claims-in-court/article_1be29048-4259-11eb-b8c3-afdd8487fd7c.html<br /><br />https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54874120<br /><br />https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/18/dead-voter-conspiracy-theory-debunked<br /><br />https://www.newsweek.com/two-dead-voters-cited-trump-proof-georgia-ballot-fraud-are-alive-1547432<br /><br />https://www.businessinsider.com/rudy-giuliani-witness-slammed-with-cease-and-desist-from-dominion-2020-12<br /><br />To date, the one and only example of true fraud uncovered in all these lawsuits was of a knowingly fraudulent vote by a TRUMP voter:<br /><br />https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/12/21/pennsylvania-man-charged-with-voter-fraud-for-casting-ballot-for-trump-under-dead-mothers-name/?sh=6d1863a959bf<br /><br />Dan - A Disciplined Hubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588294648648656600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699266088923868373.post-49246440274302424652020-12-31T06:50:07.238-08:002020-12-31T06:50:07.238-08:00I just watched the GA Senate Hearings on the voter...I just watched the GA Senate Hearings on the voter fraud. Please have an open-minded watch of it. A lot of it is very compelling (it gets better as you go, they save the best for last!) - https://youtu.be/u5ZP_HpBKosjuliesphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02856609580815309314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699266088923868373.post-49646387672923297742020-12-30T18:20:38.513-08:002020-12-30T18:20:38.513-08:00Sorry sweetie, but that little maneuver doesn'...Sorry sweetie, but that little maneuver doesn't work either. I'm not the least bit angry. I just think you're full of shit. Though, I do applaud your honestly in admitting you really haven't experienced any personal deprivation as a result of the lockdowns. I think you guys gave up any right to talk about "swamp" without people giggling in your face with, at the latest, Trump's recent pardons. Dan - A Disciplined Hubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588294648648656600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699266088923868373.post-62444163483715157762020-12-30T16:43:19.201-08:002020-12-30T16:43:19.201-08:00You're so angry always, dan. Take a chill pill...You're so angry always, dan. Take a chill pill.<br /><br />I agree with the courts that they are not the correct venue to redress a fraudulent election. State legislatures and Congress is the right place, but I doubt they will have the gumption. No, this will go down in history as another Democrat steal, like Kennedy. The facts more than speak for themselves.<br /><br />National Review is not my preferred media. You are confused. It's not Reps versus Dems, it's swamp versus MAGA.<br /><br />I work for a living and my job is uninterrupted. I am much more concerned by the multitude put out of work by these insane cowardly policies. Repeat after me: healthy people are not contagious.<br /><br />juliesphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02856609580815309314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699266088923868373.post-55089710333722334412020-12-30T16:14:40.565-08:002020-12-30T16:14:40.565-08:00From that bastion of liberalism, The National Revi...From that bastion of liberalism, The National Review. I'm sure you'll have no substantive response to either but will suggest I broaden my perspective by reading your "alternative sources" because The National Review just isn't conservative enough these days. From what I can tell, that's basically your "go-to" move whenever a Republican judge or Republican politician or pundit says you're full of shit -- claim they are too mainstream and that everyone needs to instead read your preferred "media," loosely and liberally defined.<br /><br /><br />https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/12/31/disgrace-after-defeat/<br /><br />https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/louie-gohmert-mike-pence-lawsuit/<br /><br />Dan - A Disciplined Hubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588294648648656600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699266088923868373.post-82453670626835865712020-12-30T16:04:53.656-08:002020-12-30T16:04:53.656-08:00You'd make a good lawyer -- their win loss rec...You'd make a good lawyer -- their win loss record always depends on creatively defining a loss. Unfortunately, getting thrown out of court on a motion to dismiss is, in fact, a loss no matter how you try to define one. It's actually about the worse kind of loss, because it means you either were too poor a lawyer to know the law or argue for an extension of it, or the facts were so skimpy there was no plausible case to proceed with, or both. If your legal theory is bogus, you can manufacture as many "facts" as you want, because unless they apply to a valid legal theory, and unless they would add up to win on the relief you want if they were true and were material, they are utterly irrelevant.<br /><br />As for transmission, I'll continue to pay attention to the actual experts with actual degrees and actual expertise and not to the ramdom musings of the self-annointed Dr. Julie. BTW, have you suffered any of the actual harm of which you spend so much time bitching? I keep finding that those of us who have seen major changes in our work and personal routines and even job losses usually support public health decisions that keep others safe, while most of the bitching seems to be done by a bunch of retirees who weren't going into work anyway, or AR-15 wielding wannabe "patriots" who didn't have a job anyway and, of course, stay-at-home bloggers with time to devote hours and hours and hours to looking for random Wuhan studies. It seems to be the people who have suffered the least from the shutdowns and can't name a single (a) right they supposedly have; (b) that actually is a constitutional right; (c) that has been infringed; (d) in a way that has actually had a material impact on them personally, versus just abstract bitching about non-existent "consitooshnl rites."Dan - A Disciplined Hubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588294648648656600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699266088923868373.post-51003349952729530012020-12-30T12:02:02.796-08:002020-12-30T12:02:02.796-08:00No cases were lost. They were not tried on process...No cases were lost. They were not tried on process grounds.<br /><br />Healthy people do not spread the virus. Presymptomatic and asymptomatic transmission is not a thing. If you disagree, wear a mask to protect yourself, don't trample healthy people's rights and force all the harms on others.juliesphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02856609580815309314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699266088923868373.post-27056533770843416022020-12-30T11:40:51.247-08:002020-12-30T11:40:51.247-08:00No, the lesson isn't don't drive a car. It...No, the lesson isn't don't drive a car. It's, do it with care and wear a seatbelt. Similarly, in a pandemic, don't go out unless there is a good reason, don't get too close to people, and wear a mask. Now, if I were in Canada, I might seriously consider not going out on a walk, given the possibility that you'd be driving down the street with a blindfold on, prattling on and on about your right to drive anyway you want and declaring stop signs to be government tyranny in action.Dan - A Disciplined Hubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588294648648656600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699266088923868373.post-64524526614445115542020-12-30T11:37:48.612-08:002020-12-30T11:37:48.612-08:00That's another fallacy you like trotting out -...That's another fallacy you like trotting out -- that there is some "right" to file lawsuits no matter how specious. There is not. There is, in fact something called Rule 11 that says parties and their lawyers can be sanctioned for filing cases or pleadings that are not adequately supported by facts or law. You've lost 59 of 60 cases and counting -- there is no right to just keep filing cases just so Trump can keep up his PAC fund-raising grift for a few more weeks.Dan - A Disciplined Hubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588294648648656600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699266088923868373.post-71476541652377376632020-12-30T10:57:26.257-08:002020-12-30T10:57:26.257-08:00You were specifically referring to the Stalin quot...You were specifically referring to the Stalin quote, so I responded to that.<br /><br />As to what Pence can and can't do, that's a legal/constitutional question. I find it ironic that you cry "dictator!" while they are pursuing legal recourse. I would think it was the one wishing to discourage such recourse (you) to be more aptly described such.<br /><br />And once again you fly right off the deep end. If COVID was responsible, then fine, but in many places they are classifying all deaths with COVID as by COVID which is also wrong.<br /><br />And again, a misdirection with your analogy. What are the chances of a healthy 41-year-old (hell, any 41-year-old) of dying of COVID. I looked it up for you. By population 0.0057% (2,372/41,649,144) - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm Healthy and taking vitamins, brings it down to what? By comparison, your chance of dying in a car accident, per pop, is 0.01%. For drivers only, what's that? By your reasoning, DONT GO OUT IN A CAR!juliesphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02856609580815309314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699266088923868373.post-7833481198288201152020-12-30T09:32:21.700-08:002020-12-30T09:32:21.700-08:00You're either crazy or deliberately misreading...You're either crazy or deliberately misreading the entirety of the Rasmussen post. It specifically suggests that Pence can simply refuse to open or count the electoral votes from disputed swing states. <br /><br /><br />Yeah, yeah, yeah. Hospitals are out of ICU space but, according to you, it's all just seasonal spikes in hospital admission, so definitely no second surge going on. A very public case of a 41 year-old dying from Covid is just an "anecdote" and certainly not enough to discredit your internet research from Wuhan. Interesting that you've now injected "sole cause." Quite a loophole and one that makes zero sense in terms of either tracking or preventing Covid deaths. It's like saying that a diabetic who dies of related kidney failure didn't really die of diabetes, or that someone with congestive heart failure from bad dietary choices didn't really die of those choices because they walked up a flight of stairs, thereby triggering the heart attack. Under your logic, it was the stairs that got them, not the heart disease or the choices that caused the heart disease. As for strolling, I can dramatically increase my risk of being hit if every time I approach an intersection I close my eyes and walk across without looking both ways, and I can reduce my risk by looking both ways when approaching intersections. If I choose to ignore the risk of getting hit and just plow ahead, then my risk goes up quite substantially. Similarly, if I'm the guy driving the car, I can protect pedestrians by looking out for them and slowing down as I approach intersections. Or, I can deliberately choose not to do that, asserting my "right" to drive my car.Dan - A Disciplined Hubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588294648648656600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699266088923868373.post-12584514089159066922020-12-30T08:18:27.517-08:002020-12-30T08:18:27.517-08:00The Stalin quote seems apropos. Stalin was pointin...The Stalin quote seems apropos. Stalin was pointing out how to steal an election. The allegation is that the left stole the election, just like Stalin did. It's NOT an instruction to Pence to act like Stalin. You have to be crazy to read that into it.<br /><br />How many healthy 41-year-olds died from COVID-19 as the sole cause? One anecdote does not convince. Show me the stats that healthy 41 year-olds are in danger. I reckon you have more chance being hit by a car while out for a stroll, but that ought not keep you from strolling.juliesphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02856609580815309314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699266088923868373.post-90605522306328724872020-12-30T08:08:22.137-08:002020-12-30T08:08:22.137-08:00By the way, how about that congressman-elect from ...By the way, how about that congressman-elect from Louisiana who just died of Covid at 41 years old? https://www.wdsu.com/article/sources-congressman-elect-luke-letlow-dies-from-covid-19/35093657# I thought according to your blog and copious supporting research healthy white guys in their 40s from Red states should just ignore all those pesky guys with real degrees and expertise on viruses and public health? Or, maybe he DID read your blog? Very sad, though I doubt it'll have much impact on the thinking process of all those other young republicans in Louisiana out doing their own research on the internet and obeying your advice to make their own (uneducated) decisions based on shit they read on Facebook and Blogger.Dan - A Disciplined Hubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588294648648656600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699266088923868373.post-12565943096641330602020-12-30T07:48:24.757-08:002020-12-30T07:48:24.757-08:00Just the latest in the long litany of things you o...Just the latest in the long litany of things you opine about (Section 230, election law, civil and appellate procedure, virology and virus testing) without, as they say in my part of the country, "knowing your ass from a hole in the ground." I'm not a boomer, though I do like a lot of their music.<br /><br />BTW, you're on kind of shaky ground with your "we're all just protecting democracy" BS, when you have a prominent Republican pollster relying on quotes attributed (probably wrongly) to JOSEF STALIN to try to goad Pence to pretend he didn't receive the certified electoral college votes from the swing states: https://www.yahoo.com/news/anger-conservative-pollster-rasmussen-appears-232945555.html. It says a lot about your side of the aisle that they now feel free to openly rely on election manipulation advice from a Soviet dictator.Dan - A Disciplined Hubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588294648648656600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699266088923868373.post-44969185489992944482020-12-29T19:29:18.370-08:002020-12-29T19:29:18.370-08:00Ok, boomer.Ok, boomer.juliesphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02856609580815309314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699266088923868373.post-55890331893285038602020-12-29T19:03:45.555-08:002020-12-29T19:03:45.555-08:00You mean all that "evidence" that right-...You mean all that "evidence" that right-wing media sources are stumbling all over themselves to disclaim, now that they are facing actual lawsuits? Bill Barr, the AG you all loved just a few weeks ago has said straight out there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, so now all your side hates him. Do NOT pretend you're promoting some objective search for truth. Yep, I'm a zealous supporter of democratic processes and institutions and don't have any problem calling out people who are undermining and calling them on their rationalizing BS. I'm totally loving Adam Kinzinger, one of the only R's on the Hill who isn't a sniveling weakling. Dan - A Disciplined Hubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588294648648656600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699266088923868373.post-58681876313960041652020-12-29T18:28:21.644-08:002020-12-29T18:28:21.644-08:00This illustrates the problem with these discussion...This illustrates the problem with these discussions. Julie doesn’t take us seriously, or doesn’t want to. She apparently thinks we’re just two competing ideologies, the old left and right, and respect for the other side is an obligation. Trumpism shows zero respect for, or loyalty to, anything outside their ambitions. Her side seems to think all they have to do is turn a criticism around and point it back at us. They lie, they cheat, they fail as good citizens, but all they have to do is deny and we should accept their well-intentioned “goodness.”<br /><br />There’s no evidence of voter fraud that comes anywhere in the ballpark of changing the outcome of the election. The prevailing conclusion is that it was a fair and sound election. Period. There is plenty of evidence of voter suppression and other unfair shenanigans by the GOP but, as in the past, everyone accepts the results because it’s best for the country. Trumpism is a new organized movement that has shown time and again that they feel no obligation to democracy, and as such, they are America’s most dangerous enemy.<br />Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16055467532238794485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699266088923868373.post-31574885654510157852020-12-29T16:42:08.028-08:002020-12-29T16:42:08.028-08:00Anybody who is 100% sure of their opinion, in this...Anybody who is 100% sure of their opinion, in this era of fake news and lying politicians, needs to check themselves. I am not 100% sure there was enough fraud to overturn the election, but I put the odds at around 70% based on all the evidence in those lawsuits, none of which were tried, and more besides. Being 100% sure is the sure sign of a zealot.juliesphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02856609580815309314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699266088923868373.post-55673576406030627432020-12-29T15:05:18.980-08:002020-12-29T15:05:18.980-08:00Except, my opinion is based on facts and on 59 sep...Except, my opinion is based on facts and on 59 separate cases that your side has filed being blown completely out of the water by a bunch of Republican and Trump appointed judges, at every level of the court system. You can choose to "believe Trump received more votes than Biden," but all the claims of dead people voting, etc. have been debunked with the exception of one guy who admits he cast a vote for his dead mother -- and voted for Trump. The President's legal team is not representing in court that there is (a) massive voter fraud; or (b) that any fraud or irregularities were sufficient to change the result. They aren't arguing that in court because in that forum there are consequences for lying, while on your blog there are not. You don't create a legitimate dispute about a result simply by saying you think your guy won. So, we absolutely do not share the same goal, and for you to claim that you are trying to assure democracy works is utter horseshit. That's not personalizing it -- it's just refusing to concede some kind of factual, ethical, moral equivalence to the the positions that isn't there. Dan - A Disciplined Hubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588294648648656600noreply@blogger.com