Russia, Russia, Russia

[phillysailor]

You used those words to implicate Republicans when I raised the issue of challenging election results. I thought it was a bit over the top, so I turned them around and sent them back.

The president bears responsibility for the Jan 6 attack on Congress by mob rioters.

The mob was fed lies. They were provoked by the president and other powerful people.



I’m trying to be non-partisan, unlike you.

 

[jocal505]

When did objecting to the certification of an election become a problem?

When there is no evidence of any problem with that election.

 

[Dog 2.0]

Yes, falsely accusing Democrats who objected to the certification of an election, completely within the existing legal framework, of conspiring to overturn that election by a variety of frauds.

Like some Republicans did.

You lost the plot. I was me who in response to Philly asked the question ... "When did objecting to the certification of an election become a problem?"

 

[Dog 2.0]

When there is no evidence of any problem with that election.

Don't hold your breath for that.

 

[Bus Driver]

You lost the plot. I was me who in response to Philly asked the question ... "When did objecting to the certification of an election become a problem?"

It was you who tried to make the actions of those who "conspired to defraud the nation by changing the results of the election" seem like they were just "objecting to the certification of an election".

False equivalence.

 

[Dog 2.0]

It was you who tried to make the actions of those who "conspired to defraud the nation by changing the results of the election" seem like they were just "objecting to the certification of an election".

False equivalence.

Nonsense. It was Phillysailor who tried to sell the notion that challenging the certification of an election (when Republicans do it) is anti-American. I was simply responding to that.

 

[Bus Driver]

Nonsense. It was Phillysailor who tried to sell the notion that challenging the certification of an election (when Republicans do it) is anti-American. I was simply responding to that.

Nope. You are equating "challenging the results" with "changing the results". That is bullshit.

And, I believe you see it. You're just too deep in this avenue to back up, now.

 

[Steam Flyer]

You lost the plot. I was me who in response to Philly asked the question ... "When did objecting to the certification of an election become a problem?"

Poor, poor, misunderstood li'l Dog2. It's so sad that you work so hard and your dialectic is so maligned!

Try not lying all the fucking time.

 

[Steam Flyer]

Nonsense. It was Phillysailor who tried to sell the notion that challenging the certification of an election (when Republicans do it) is anti-American. I was simply responding to that.

D2wdyL?

You stated that simply following the legal process was the same as criminal fraud, because the ones who followed the legal process were Democrats and the criminals/traitors were Republicans.

 

[Dog 2.0]

Nope. You are equating "challenging the results" with "changing the results". That is bullshit.

And, I believe you see it. You're just too deep in this avenue to back up, now.

Nonsense ... it's a distinction without a difference. The purpose of challenging is to change.

 

[Dog 2.0]

D2wdyL?

You stated that simply following the legal process was the same as criminal fraud, because the ones who followed the legal process were Democrats and the criminals/traitors were Republicans.

Actually, the one who did that was Philly.

 

[Steam Flyer]

Actually, the one who did that was Philly.

Wrong

D2wdyL?

 

[Dog 2.0]

Wrong

D2wdyL?

Not wrong.

 

[Bus Driver]

Not wrong.

It is you who continues to try and equate the challenging of an election result to those who "conspired to defraud the government by changing the results of an election".

I continue to await evidence Democrats engaged in the same, as you have claimed.

 

[Dog 2.0]

It is you who continues to try and equate the challenging of an election result to those who "conspired to defraud the government by changing the results of an election".

I continue to await evidence Democrats engaged in the same, as you have claimed.

Nope, that was Philly.

 

[phillysailor]

Nope, that was Philly.

Who was discussing the Republican Party platform and actions.

You’re the one engaged in whataboutism (and doing it badly).

Democrats are doing infrastructure, protecting the environment, countering the negative effect monopolies have had on workers and tech development. We are fighting inflation and restoring faith in democracy and the DOJ.

You see, just like Republicans, we like to counter the other party. We just do it with policies that are good for America and reduce the national deficit.

 

[Steam Flyer]

Nope, that was Philly.

The record is clear.

You should take your constant lying act to a dumber audience. Very few here are buying it.

 

[phillysailor]

Just this week the Dept of the Interior protected the Tongass Natl Forest and the Boundary Waters Canoe Areas from Trump era predation schemes.

Together with making National Oarks free for life for ex US servicemen and women, the Biden administration is helping America maintain and enjoy the great outdoors.

Go Demoncrats!

 

[Bus Driver]

Nope, that was Philly.

Bullshit.

As anyone who actually cares about law and order, Democracy, and this country would, Philly took issues with the attempts by the defeated ex-President and his followers when they "conspired to defraud the nation by changing the results of the election".

You, then claimed it is only bad when Republicans do it. When pressed, you claimed Democrats engaged in the same, going so far as to list individual Democrats. Of course, a mere allegation is bullshit absent evidence, which you have been repeatedly asked to supply. You have provided nothing to back up you assertion that Democrats engaged in the same type of behavior as Republicans, in trying to change the results of an election.

Instead, you are trying to equate "challenging the results of an election" (legal) with "changing the results of an election" (not legal). There also were those words like "conspired" and "defraud". It appears you find them meaningless, so you just ignore them.

 

[kent_island_sailor]

I challenge this bill! Did I really get 2 steaks and a pie?
Waiter: Yes you did
not a crime

Hey there maître d', did I really get 2 steaks? I need you to take a steak off the bill for me if you know what I mean
the bill shows up with two steaks anyway
You get all of your friends at the bar to beat the shit out of the bus boy, go in the kitchen and shit on the floor, throw tables throw the windows, and build a gallows and go looking for the manager so you can kill him.
that is a crime