Trump Kicking and Screaming Transition Thread

Where do you think those website got the idea, did they just pull it out of their ass?

As far as I know, nobody challenged them.

Maybe if you could get the rep warriors to come back...

Maybe it's because those posts weren't blatant lies....

Neither are mine.

And so therein lies your problem.

Of course everyone makes assertions from time to time without putting up links to stuff supporting their reasoning, whether they are coming from left, right or center.

Anybody reasonable when asked to put up links -- whether they are on the right like Paladin or T.R. or on the left -- usually does.

You don't have a real complaint that Dicky hasn't put up links supporting his claims if a) no one has asked him to and b) we are talking about claims that are generally uncontroversial.

A lot of people thought Trump was installing Amy Coney Barrett in the hopes that she would help him overturn the election. It helped that Trump basically said so himself.

Many also suspect that if he had lost by a narrower margin, or if his arguments weren't so mind-bogglingly stupid, the Supreme Court probably would have intervened. Basically, if there were any way whatsoever for an intelligent person to buy into whatever he was trying to push.

I literally provided proof in post #1762.

As has been said, that isn't proof of anything that you've claimed.

You were whining because the left supposedly lets people slide without providing proof of their claims.

The reality is that for each of the things you linked to, Dicky was saying something that was widely reported or experienced, and no one asked him to back them up. If someone had, he probably could have done so.

Thing one: Rush saying he was not going to be doing Republicans' bidding but then doing it anyway. I remember vaguely Rush making some statement like the former. Against the backdrop of his passing away, it's probably not worth my time to try to find the specific statement. Rush still being in lockstep with the Republican Party is pretty self-evident.

Thing two: Rosie and Tom Selleck had beef over guns, the right boycotted and despite that Rosie weathered things fine. Same deal.

Thing three: David Duke endorsed Trump and Trump didn't disavow.

Yep, another thing that happened

Thing four: a bunch of WF right-wingers disappeared from the board. Again, self evident.

You don't seem to understand, so I'll try to put it in all in one-syllable words:

Those sites do not say what you said. Since it is not the same, it does not back up your claim.

If I say "The sky will fall" and you ask me for links and I give you links that say "The sky is blue", that is not proof. That is not the same thing.

Can you find links that say what you said? (That the left said the court will give the win to Trump.)

So far you have not. Does that mean you can't?

I was asked by @MikeH92467 to provide proof that @Diacanu sometimes uses, "member blah, blah, blah, I member." I provided links to those posts where he does that. That's all of the proof that was required of me.

You want me to find the exact words, 'the court will give the win to Trump." It's not going to happen because those were my words and I'm not a journalist and haven't published anything to that effect. There were some people saying something similar though. Are you denying though that when RBG died, there were rumblings, rumors and speculation around the internet that Trump would try and push through a nominee that would help him win the election if it went to the Supreme Court? If there weren't then the headlines that I linked to shouldn't exist. I'll be honest with you, I can't find quote I'm specifically thinking of because it requires me to dig through quite a few threads from several months ago that are several pages long that were popular at the time and I'm not sure which one it was, but I'm pretty sure I know who posted something along the lines of what I said. I'll keep looking though. Even if I can't find the exact quote I'm looking for, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Fantasy rep from Dicky. Okay, don't believe me follow the conversation.
First I reply to 14th Doctor
https://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3324358/
Mike challenges it.
https://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3324361/
I reply to Mike.
https://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3324363/
Mike asks me to name names.
https://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3324364/
I name Dicky.
https://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3324365/
Mike asks me cite examples.
https://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3324366/
I cite examples.
https://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3324369/
That's it. In this particular instance Mike asks me to prove my assertion by citing examples. I posted links to the examples. Case fucking closed on that one. Whether you like it or not, this is the reality. No fantasy on my part.

Does it prove what I said in post #1747, no, but it does prove what I said in post #1759. Period.

Did you miss the post where I pointed out that he was not posting absolute bullshit and the post where Raoul pointed out that he wasn't posting absolute bullshit?

Doesn't matter. That's not what I was asked to prove.

That was not, of course, what Mike asked you.

Mike said it is not good enough to just say "I remember" without putting up evidence.

You attempted to move to goalpost by saying it is good enough for the left, with Dicky in mind.

But Dicky has, as we've acknowledged, not been asked to provide proof of those things.

Anyway, enough of the latest episode of "Dumb, troll or both?"

Literally no one is asking you to find any exact set of words expressing the sentiment "The Supreme Court is going to hand the White House to Trump." Just anything in that ballpark. Not The Supreme Court might hand the White House to Trump. Not Trump is going to try to get the Supreme Court to hand the White House to Trump.

You are the one who claimed that sentiment was ubiquitous here and in general on the left. So it shouldn't be too hard to find a couple examples of people from the left saying that.

But of course it is, because it didn't happen.

In this great big world where one can find quotes about Jewish space lasers, there doesn't seem to be a thing saying what you claim was everywhere.

No one is denying that people thought that Trump would try to push through a nominee that would help him win the election if it went to the Supreme Court. I believe Trump literally may have said it himself that he wanted to get ACB on the Court in case it was needed to decide an election lawsuit.

That is, of course, different from the notion that the Supreme Court would actually overturn the election results.

Admittedly, there are probably people on the left who were worried about unlikely scenarios where the election results were much closer and then there would be a Bush v. Gore II Electric Bugaloo situation. If that is all you are trying to say, fair enough.

But if what you are trying to say is that anybody on the left worried that the Supreme Court would take Trump's actual legal challenges and use one of those to overturn the election, well, show us the money.

Here is what did happen:

Many people said that Trump would probably try to use the Supreme Court to steal the election after losing it.

Trump did try to use the Supreme Court to steal the election after losing it. Fortunately, he lost badly enough that even his own justices couldn't rationalize giving him what he wanted.

Then Federal Farmer decided that the fact that he failed constituted some sort of "gotcha."

No. In fact, the whole point that I and others are tying to make here is that that is what happened. What you claimed is entirely different:

Are you really claiming to be so feeble-minded that you can't see the difference between "Trump was trying to pack the court in his favor" and "It is sure that the court is going to decide the election in his favor"? You might not have three doctorates and be able to converse fluently in twelve languages, but it seem to me that even you should be able to see immediately that those are not at all equivalent statements.

So which is it? Are you really unable to see the difference, or are you arguing in bad faith?

I feel it's important to note here, that the court didn't take the case not because he lost so badly, but because a credible argument was not given and any evidence of voter fraud was not provided.

True, as far as it goes, but the bar for what constitutes a "credible argument" would almost certainly have been lowered considerably if Biden's victory margin had been as thin as Bush's in 2000.

The court finds that third-party Jewish space lasers do not violate the separation of church and state.

@The Ghost of Crazy Horse is right you all know, there's absolutely no evidence that Trump was trying to set up the courts to overturn the election in his favour:

On a related note...

Here is a YouTube video explaining why @The Ghost of Crazy Horse is wrong: link.

Ok, that was just mean.

I must be a bad person, because I can't stop laughing about it...

Thanks, I'm here all week. Don't forget to tip the mods.

I know.
Found it.
https://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3285253/
https://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3289822/

https://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3289829/
Your sarcastic tone absolutely suggests that people on the left, like yourself, were in fact suggesting that the supreme court would attempt to hand Trump the election.

On the other hand, the actual words:

Ah yes, a couple of weeks ago when absolutely no-one was predicting the Trump admin was gonna try and use the courts to manipulate the election results.

And what happened was in fact the Trump administration trying to use the courts to manipulate the election results.

Let's also look at your two smoking gun links:

Before the election there absolutely was a chance that would happen. Note it doesn't say it will definitely happen, or is the most likely outcome. Just that before the election there were viable paths leading to that situation.

And let's look at your second link:

So again, we have another post where it is being stated how the Trump admin was definitely trying to get the courts to overturn the election results in their favour, along with also saying that the courts probably won't play along.

At this point it is really clear that you either have to repeat eighth grade reading comprehension, or are trolling in bad faith. Which is it?