This is the easy life of os trig. Spam right wing blogs with click bait titles where he thinks he's triggering someone with facts and logic where it takes him 30 seconds to find the article and post it. Then someone with actual intellectual curiosity spends 40 minutes sincerely typing a point by point rebuttal. Os ignores it and spams another article. It's a lose lose situation for you dawg.
they were chanting lock her up at his rally from yesterday you can only laugh then have pity on such poor soul
Crazy! We’re talking about Trump in a thread about Trump’s home being searched for classified documents.
Well, if everyone would ignore trump and talk about Clinton and Biden's son he'd go away and not steal any classified documents and refuse to give them back.
LOL. I know better than to spend too much time on an Os article. My reply was a cut and paste from a Washington Post article.
To be fair some of the stuff that @Os Trigonum post does bring up important points worth discussing. Still he seems to take a quantity versus quality approach. There was a piece from Ann Althouse that is surprised was published in the first place. She starts off the piece admitting she’s responding to something she didn’t even read all of. I mean who does she think is? A poster on Clutchfans?!
what's funny is that this has become some sort of ClutchFans D&D talking point, that I posted something by Althouse where she discusses something she didn't read. That's false, as you can clearly see from the post. She says she didn't read the NYT piece at the time WHEN IT FIRST CAME OUT. Then, when someone asked her about it, she went back and read it. THEN, she discussed it. The key part that some of you must have missed is this part, bolded: Wrote the Editorial Board of the NYT in "Donald Trump Is Not Above the Law,"which went up last Friday. I didn't read it at the time because the headline is so banal, but I looked back at it because someone told me that the NYT editors were calling for the indictment of Trump. hope that helps
Hillary Clinton conceded the night of the election. She never questioned the ACTUAL VOTE COUNT being fake news. Here is the claim: a foreign country spammed our social media with propaganda that was disguised as American social media accounts that disproportionately benefited one candidate over the other and that the poltician who benefited from that foreign campaign might be either purposefully coordinating with them or is merely a "useful idiot" who is just an mere benefactor of the targeted campaign from said foreign nation. None of those claims gives grounds to Hillary desiring the election to be overturned. Claiming that a large chunk of the country got propaganda spoon feed to them by a foreign government isn't making a claim that we need to redo the election. How many election officials did Hillary call and threaten them with political retribution if they didn't find "more votes". Trump claimed that our entire vote counting and voting system is fake. He literally tried to toss out results of the entirety.of FULTON county that compromised millions of votes because he claimed they were all fraudulent . Name a single instance where Hillary wanted to toss out votes in the millions effectively violating the constitutional rights of millions of Americans at the same time. Hillary's claims had nothing to do with redoing an election or ignoring millions of votes. And this is coming from a guy who hates defending Hillary so shame on you for putting me in this position. You can't both sides your way though this. Nothing about Democrat claims about the 2016 election merit a "election redo" because you can't redo an election because you think people were brainwashed by bad faith actors. You can create a narrative that an election must be redone if you make claims that millions of votes are fake news.
I forgot but what was the vote tally delta between Bush and Gore in Florida? And what was the Democrat party requesting that they are frustrated didn't happen? When you remove all context, you can frame any narrative you want professor.
Because you shared the article with no commentary and from my time wasting my life on here that usually signals an endorsement of the content of the article.
