MovieChat Forums > Politics > Biden & Fascism: The Basics

Biden & Fascism: The Basics


This hopefully provides an outline of where the Biden phenomenon is similar to fascism and wherein it differs. It's easy to understand why even reasonably intelligent and informed people would jump to the "f" word to describe him. The ultranationalism, the anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism, the lack of any real program beyond Biden as the strongman who promises to cure the liberal democracy that ails the nation, the promise of authoritarian rule and of national renewal to be achieved by it ('Build Back Better'), the machismo, the persistent demonization of his "enemies," including helpless minorities, often to justify repressive policies–it would be far easier to list the few areas in which he differs from fascism than those wherein he echoes it. Nevertheless, some of those points of departure are important.

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/09/Untitled-design-2022-09-01T192910.589.jpg?w=1200&h=800&ixlib=react-9.3.0

reply

.... you think Joe Biden is an "ultranationalist"?

And a strongman? Huh?

reply

Joe is definitely not strong except when it comes to latching onto kids and sniffing their hair.

Ultranationalism or extreme nationalism is an extreme form of nationalism in which a country asserts or maintains detrimental hegemony, supremacy, or other forms of control over other nations (usually through violent coercion) to pursue its specific interests.

reply

>Ultranationalism or extreme nationalism is an extreme form of nationalism in which a country asserts or maintains detrimental hegemony, supremacy, or other forms of control over other nations (usually through violent coercion) to pursue its specific interests.

And what nations is Biden doing this to exactly?

reply

America

reply

This makes no sense. Your original quote regarding ultranationalism referred to asserting control over *other nations*.

What "supremacist" values does Biden have?

reply

Biden wants to be like Hilter. He is investigating and imprisoning anyone that questions his authoritarian rule. Ex: its now wrong to say an election was stolen.

Four political leaders...

...that jailed their opponents.

https://i.redd.it/hw9gn0u285sa1.jpg

reply

>Biden wants to be like Hilter. He is investigating and imprisoning anyone that questions his authoritarian rule. Ex: its now wrong to say an election was stolen.

Evidence please. Why haven't the entire wider right-wing ecosphere been arrested then? Plenty of people openly insult, criticise Joe Biden publicly. Why haven't all the members of the Republican Party in Congree been arrested and imprisoned?

Further, why haven't YOU been arrested? Why hasn't this website been shut down?

reply

Biden’s message was bad enough—his political opponents are fascists, and if you don’t support him and the Democrats, you’re a fascist, too—but the staging felt like something from 1933 Germany, and the ominous red lighting in the background didn’t help.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2022/09/02/bidens-hitler-esque-speech-was-even-too-much-for-cnn-n1626394

CNN’s Brianna Keilar agreed, saying it “flies in the face” of the notion that the American military is “supposed to be apolitical.”

All of Trumps' associates have been arrested.

reply

>Biden’s message was bad enough—his political opponents are fascists, and if you don’t support him and the Democrats, you’re a fascist, too—but the staging felt like something from 1933 Germany, and the ominous red lighting in the background didn’t help.

I recall that speech - it was fiery, but purely addressed to "MAGA Republicans". Not all Republicans. Any thoughts on when Trump called freedom of the press "disgusting"?

https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/donald-trump-thinks-freedom-press-disgusting

And who has Biden arrested? Why has Fox News not been shut down? Why has Daily Wire not been shut down? Why has Turning Point not been shut down? Why haven't Republican members of Congress been arrested?

Further, why haven't YOU been arrested? Why hasn't this website been shut down?

>All of Trumps' associates have been arrested.

Evidence please

reply

I have already proved that Biden wants to be like Hitler, now the burden of proof is on you.

Why did Joe instruct the FBI to raid Trumps house but not his own? Why is Joe supporting NYC in trying to jail a potential candidate?

reply

>I have already proved that Biden wants to be like Hitler, now the burden of proof is on you.

No, you have not. Your evidence is not evidence. Biden giving a firebrand speech where he launches a rhetorical firebrand against the MAGA GOP is not evidence of "wanting to be like Hitler".

>Why did Joe instruct the FBI to raid Trumps house but not his own?

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-biden-search-documents-461520270373

There's always a fact-check. Always.

>Why is Joe supporting NYC in trying to jail a potential candidate?

Do you think an ex-President should be immune from being summoned to answer for any potential indiscretions? Donald Trump, even if he is guilty on the charges, likely will not see jail time and it will drag on anyway - and there's no evidence that Biden has any involvement in the charges.

Are you going to answer my questions:

Why has Fox News not been shut down? Why has Daily Wire not been shut down? Why has Turning Point not been shut down? Why haven't Republican members of Congress been arrested?

Further, why haven't YOU been arrested? Why hasn't this website been shut down?

reply

My original comment speaks for itself. People hold blatant different standards for different groups.

Fact check by a liberal website? I could start my own fact check website and debunk everything.

Dems are trying to bankrupt Fox news by suing them for no reason. The 1st Amendment applies to everyone including Republicans.

reply

You're truly delusional if you think the AP is a "liberal website"...Oh, wait!


https://media.tenor.com/MjdRJu9VSVEAAAAM/bbtyler-bb20.gif

reply

I have tried posting facts about Trump from AP, but then people said it was fake or not trust worthy.

reply

>My original comment speaks for itself. People hold blatant different standards for different groups.

Answer my questions: Why has Fox News not been shut down? Why has Daily Wire not been shut down? Why has Turning Point not been shut down? Why haven't Republican members of Congress been arrested?

These are basic things that were starting to happen in 1932 Weimar Germany. Why aren't they happening in the USA?

>Dems are trying to bankrupt Fox news by suing them for no reason. The 1st Amendment applies to everyone including Republicans.

Dominion is not the Democrats. And they weren't sued for "no reason". Defamation.

Do you reject defamation laws?

reply

Apparently defemination laws only apply to democrats. Trump sued everyone that said he colluded with Russia. All the cases were thrown out by democrat Judges. Even Nancy spread lies that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election. She also said that Trump was going to steal the 2020 election and Joe said he would lose by chicanery and Hillary said not to concede under any circumstances. In Joes demagogues speech, he labeled all MAGA supporters enemies of the State.

If its wrong to spread lies then all the democrats should be sued.

People that say the 2020 election was stolen are now the crazy ones, but it was ok to say the 2016 election was stolen.

reply

>Apparently defemination laws only apply to democrats. Trump sued everyone that said he colluded with Russia. All the cases were thrown out by democrat Judges. Even Nancy spread lies that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election. She also said that Trump was going to steal the 2020 election and Joe said he would lose by chicanery and Hillary said not to concede under any circumstances.

The Fox News claims went much further than just claiming things would happen. Trump also made claims about Democrats and that they would steal the election. He was not arrested for that, and charged for it. Trump lied all the time about small and big things.

>In Joes demagogues speech, he labeled all MAGA supporters enemies of the State.

"Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.

Now, I want to be very clear — (applause) — very clear up front: Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans. Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology.

I know because I’ve been able to work with these mainstream Republicans.

But there is no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans, and that is a threat to this country."

Trump once called Democrats "treasonous": https://www.npr.org/2018/02/05/583447413/trump-democrats-un-american-treasonous-during-state-of-the-union

He has not been sued for that.

>People that say the 2020 election was stolen are now the crazy ones, but it was ok to say the 2016 election was stolen.

No-one says it was stolen. And you are not answering my questions:

Why has Fox News not been shut down? Why has Daily Wire not been shut down? Why has Turning Point not been shut down? Why haven't Republican members of Congress been arrested?

reply

Trump made the remarks during a speech in a Cincinnati suburb where he was promoting the tax bill he signed into law last December. The president began complaining that even as he was touting record low unemployment among African-Americans and Latinos, Democrats remained stoic, speculating that they might be reprimanded if they smiled or applauded.

FACT CHECK: Trump Touts Low Unemployment Rates For African-Americans, Hispanics

FACT CHECK: Trump Touts Low Unemployment Rates For African-Americans, Hispanics

"Even on positive news — really positive news, like that — they were like death and un-American. Un-American," Trump complained. "Somebody said treasonous. Yeah, I guess, why not? Can we call that treason? Why not? I mean, they certainly didn't seem to love our country very much."

FACT CHECK: Trump did not say treason, it was implied. 4 Pinocchio's.

But there is no question that the Democrat Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Joe Biden and the BBB Democrats, and that is a threat to this Country."

Trump was right about the election being stolen. Even Joe said he would lose by chicanery and Nancy said Trump would steal the election again.

What needs to happen is that a Special Counsel needs to be appointed to investigate chicanery and possible collusion.

FACT CHECK: Nancy said that Trump was going to steal the election again. This has confirmed to be true.

FACT CHECK: Joe said he would lose by chicanery. This has confirmed to be true.

FACT CHECK: Hillary said not to concede under any circumstances. This has confirmed to be true.

reply

>FACT CHECK: Trump did not say treason, it was implied. 4 Pinocchio's.

Okay, so he only "implied" that Democrats are treasonous? How the fuck is that much better?

>Trump was right about the election being stolen. Even Joe said he would lose by chicanery and Nancy said Trump would steal the election again.

You continue to purely speak purely in catchphrases. How does Joe Biden suggesting that he would only lose by potential fraud mean that him winning means there must've been fraud? What's the logic here?

>FACT CHECK: Hillary said not to concede under any circumstances. This has confirmed to be true.

There's some context here, of course: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/hillary-clinton-says-biden-should-not-concede-2020-election-under-n1238156

reply

“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances,

What context?

Hillary Clinton said in a new interview that Joe Biden should not concede the 2020 presidential election “under any circumstances,"

Was there chicanery like Joe said or was there none? Nancy said that Trump would steal the election again. Did Trump steal the election or not?

reply

>What context?

I literally gave you the link.

>Was there chicanery like Joe said or was there none? Nancy said that Trump would steal the election again. Did Trump steal the election or not?

No, there was no "chicanery". There was no theft.

reply

“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances,

Hillary Clinton said in a new interview that Joe Biden should not concede the 2020 presidential election “under any circumstances,"

But Joe said he would lose by chicanery. Why not investigate to make sure there was no chicanery?

reply

Why don't you demand this from your own Republicans who control the house?

reply

Its too late now to do anything. An investigation would probably take 2 years. The dems had plenty of time to investigate for chicanery but they didnt.

reply

But again, Republicans are the ones who are alleging fraud. Why does it matter how long it would take?

reply

No, Dems said that Trump was going to cheat again to steal the election.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said President Donald Trump would “lie, cheat and steal to win this election” on Wednesday’s broadcast of ABC’s “The View.”

She continued, “He’s trying to dismantle the Postal Service to undermine vote by mail. He’s inviting practically voter interference into our elections. The voter suppression and intimidation that he is bragging about practically that they are engaged in, and it’s really a shame in terms of our Constitution and our sacred right to vote.

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said Wednesday night that his campaign has gathered a group of 600 lawyers and more than 10,000 volunteers to fight against possible “chicanery” in the November election, as the candidate warns that President Donald Trump could interfere with the election to ensure his victory.

Hillary Clinton said in a new interview that Joe Biden should not concede the 2020 presidential election “under any circumstances," anticipating issues that could prolong knowing the final outcome.

How come Trump didn't steal the election with the help of Russia?

reply

>No, Dems said that Trump was going to cheat again to steal the election.

And he didn't win.

Why are you, again, just quoting things I already know?

>How come Trump didn't steal the election with the help of Russia?

Because he failed. Thankfully the American institutions were stronger than him trying to change the results.

reply

Which means Trump was right about the election being stolen. Why did Nancy said Trump was going to steal the election? Joe said he was going to lose by chicanery and Hillary said not to concede under any circumstances.

reply

>Which means Trump was right about the election being stolen.

No it doesn't? That just doesn't follow at all.

>Why did Nancy said Trump was going to steal the election? Joe said he was going to lose by chicanery and Hillary said not to concede under any circumstances.

Because they believed that Trump would try to manipulate the result.

reply

But did Trump manipulate the result or steal the election?

reply

He certainly tried

reply

If he tried then why did he lose? Apparently, Biden and company cheated more.

reply

Because he failed.

>Apparently, Biden and company cheated more.

No, this does not follow. That Trump failed to cheat successfully doesn't mean Biden did.

reply

How did Trump fail? Please provide specifics and what techniques he used to cheat. Please cite all evidence used.

reply

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW_Bdf_jGaA&t=292s

Trump Georgia phone call

And all of the frivolous court cases in the swing states that were basically all dismissed.

reply

Youtube isn't proof, but nice try Cleetus. I will only accept reputable news sources.

The court cases were dismissed by democrats. Odd?

reply

>Youtube isn't proof, but nice try Cleetus. I will only accept reputable news sources.

It's a literal recorded phone call between Trump and the Georgian Secretary of State

>The court cases were dismissed by democrats. Odd?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_D._Grimberg

This guy doesn't seem to be a Democrat

reply

I have tried posting from Youtube and Twitter and everyone tells me its fake news.

One Republican on the payroll? Never seen that before. Democrats and Republicans dont like outsiders swimming in the their pool of corruption. Everything is back to the status quo with Joe.

reply

>I have tried posting from Youtube and Twitter and everyone tells me its fake news.

Literally click the link. Are you going to claim the audio is faked?

>One Republican on the payroll? Never seen that before. Democrats and Republicans dont like outsiders swimming in the their pool of corruption. Everything is back to the status quo with Joe.

You said every judge that threw out the post-election challenges was a Democrat. This is demonstrably untrue.

reply

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/01/microsofts-new-ai-can-simulate-anyones-voice-with-3-seconds-of-audio/

Microsoft’s new AI can simulate anyone’s voice with 3 seconds of audio

reply

A good thing then that the video I linked you is two years old and thus this is not relevant.

reply

Where is your evidence to back up this claim?

reply

The literal timestamp on the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW_Bdf_jGaA&t=292s&ab_channel=NBCNews

This is from NBC news. Are you suggesting that NBC faked an hour long conversation with Trump and the Georgian Secretary of State, and did so with two years before the AI technology had arrived?

reply

Youtube is not a reputable news source. And NBC is biased against Trump. How did NBC acquire a personal phone call about Trump? Seems suspicious to me.

reply

U2R
F'n idiots

reply

>Youtube is not a reputable news source. And NBC is biased against Trump. How did NBC acquire a personal phone call about Trump? Seems suspicious to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Raffensperger_phone_call#:~:text=During%20the%20phone%20call%2C%20Trump,regarding%20voting%20in%20the%20state.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/highlights-of-trump-s-call-with-the-georgia-secretary-of-state-1/b67c0d9dbde1a697/full.pdf

Dude this is public knowledge

Are you unironically now saying this whole phone call is fake?

reply

Wiki is open source and anyone can edit it. Whether its truthful or not.

Not sure what Int.Nyt is, looks sketchy to me.

If the phone call is real then it would be uploaded to the .Gov website.

Only an investigation would reveal if that is Trump actually talking and if he said any of those things.

reply

>Wiki is open source and anyone can edit it. Whether its truthful or not.

Feel free to check the sources.

>Not sure what Int.Nyt is, looks sketchy to me.

Dude, it's the New York Times website.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html

The phone call is literally being investigated: https://apnews.com/article/trump-fulton-county-grand-jury-georgia-26bfecadd0da1a53a4547fa3e975cfa2

reply

You gave a bunch of links, much of which criticizes the claims and none of them suggest that they are reputable sources.

WAPO
(paywalled)

I will wait til the investigation is over to determine what is real or fake.

reply

>You gave a bunch of links, much of which criticizes the claims and none of them suggest that they are reputable sources.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/21/1106472863/georgia-officials-fact-check-infamous-trump-phone-call-in-real-time

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/politics/full-audio-call-between-president-trump-georgia-secretary-state-brad-raffensperger-election/6F7PDHDFDVCNTD3E76V7PIZWII/

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-joe-biden-arts-and-entertainment-elections-georgia-2b27f4c92919556bf6548117648693b7

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/04/trumps-phone-call-to-brad-raffensperger-five-key-points

How many fucking media sources do you want? No-one disputes the phone call happened.

>I will wait til the investigation is over to determine what is real or fake.

No-one actually doubts the phone call happened dude. It was recording.

reply

No one doubts the phone call happened, but thats not what Trump said. Before someone is secretly recorded they have to be made aware they are being recorded. This never happened. What happened is that someone used AI voice to create a fake conversation and incriminate Trump.

Evolution of Voice AI
https://ai-techpark.com/evolution-of-voice-ai/

1995 (ALICE): An NLP bot which applied heuristic pattern matching rules to human input called ALICE – Artificial Linguistic Internet Computer Entity
2000 (Smarterchild): a chatbot – which was available on AOL Instant Messenger and Windows Live Messenger networks was developed by ActiveBuddy. This bot is a precursor to Apple’s Siri and Samsung’s S Voice in many ways.
2011 (Siri by Apple): a voice-activated intelligent assistant was launched by Apple as part of its iOS and macOS platforms.
2012 (Google Now): Google develops chatbot for Google searches mobile app named as Google Now.
2014 (Alexa by Amazon, Cortana by Microsoft): Amazon launched Alexa, an intelligent personal assistant via the Amazon Echo. And Microsoft launches Cortana, a virtual assistant named after the fictional character from “Halo”.
2015 (M by Facebook): Facebook launched a hybrid bot-and-human virtual assistant called M which is accessible through Messenger.
2016 (Google Home, Sirikit by Apple): Google unveiled its answer to Amazon Echo called Google Home. Apple introduced Sirikit.
2017 (Google Assistant, Woebot by Woebot Labs): it expands beyond Android to iOS and is available now for download on the iTunes stores for iPhones and Google Home apart from scheduling appointments it can make hands-free calls as well.


The phone call was in 2021 and AI voice was already perfected by then. The Deep State has access to better technology than regular citizens. Tiny spy cameras were used by Agents in the 1960's before anyone had ever heard of them.

reply

>No one doubts the phone call happened, but thats not what Trump said. Before someone is secretly recorded they have to be made aware they are being recorded. This never happened. What happened is that someone used AI voice to create a fake conversation and incriminate Trump.

Evidence please.

>The phone call was in 2021 and AI voice was already perfected by then. The Deep State has access to better technology than regular citizens. Tiny spy cameras were used by Agents in the 1960's before anyone had ever heard of them.

Why hasn't Trump disputed the phone call's existence then? Or the Georgian secretary of state?

reply

https://filme.imyfone.com/voice-record/donald-trump-ai-voice-generator/

Trump and the Georgian secretary of state cannot disclose whats going on with ongoing litigation. You really need to read up on the laws.

reply

Dude, this voice recording is over 2 years old. If this was AI generated, it'd be known by now.

You have zero evidence and you are just baselessly promoting a conspiracy theory.

reply

You have zero evidence that its real. Trump will be vindicated when the Truth comes out. Just like he was vindicated about the Russian collusion conspiracy theory.

This is why we need The Trump back as the real President.

reply

>You have zero evidence that its real.

Occam's Razor. Literally no-one anywhere, on any site has claimed that this is a deepfake. You are the first person to claim this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Raffensperger_phone_call#Reactions

"On January 3 Trump said on Twitter that he had spoken to Raffensperger and that Raffensperger was "unwilling or unable to answer questions" about alleged election fraud and that he "has no clue". Later that day, the recording of the conversation was released to the Washington Post and other media outlets; a local television station said they had obtained it from "government sources".

Raffensperger said he had not initially intended to release the tape, but felt compelled to respond after Trump misrepresented the call on Twitter. He added that the call had been hastily arranged after Trump saw Raffensperger say on Fox News that morning that the election had been fair and honest and that Trump had lost. It was later reported that the White House had made 18 attempts over the previous weeks to get the secretary of state's office on the phone. Raffensperger said he had preferred not to take such calls because his office was in "litigation mode" with the White House, and both sides would need to have their advisers present."

Look at the reactions.

reply

Raffensperger? He is anti-Trump, of course he will make up lies.

Literally anyone can create a wiki entry and say whatever they want. I want to hear the original recording if it even exists.

reply

>Raffensperger? He is anti-Trump, of course he will make up lies.

Evidence it was a lie please.

>Literally anyone can create a wiki entry and say whatever they want. I want to hear the original recording if it even exists.

That's not remotely how Wikipedia works at all. Random people cannot just vandalise content on there.

The notion that Trump, a famous loud-mouth wouldn't have called that transcript fake by now is absurd. It would also be a huge disaster. There's no way a deepfake could be that convincing.

reply

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3530732-how-brad-raffensperger-stood-up-to-trump/

Put simply, a wiki is a website, database or online community that is managed by its users. Accordingly, any user is able to add, edit or remove content. Wikis usually have different pages dedicated to different topics or themes. They're powered by technology known as a wiki engine, or wiki software.

You literally dont know anything, this is too easy.

reply

?https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3530732-how-brad-raffensperger-stood-up-to-trump/

What's the relevance of this article here? What are you getting at specifically?

>Put simply, a wiki is a website, database or online community that is managed by its users. Accordingly, any user is able to add, edit or remove content. Wikis usually have different pages dedicated to different topics or themes. They're powered by technology known as a wiki engine, or wiki software.

New users have no real power, and most articles are protected from vandalism and inappropriate, ignorant edits. You have to demonstrate a degree of trust before you can just wantonly edit stuff.

Still waiting for evidence that the phone call was a deepfake.

reply

"What's the relevance of this article here? What are you getting at specifically?"

I cant read it for you.

"New users have no real power, and most articles are protected from vandalism and inappropriate, ignorant edits. You have to demonstrate a degree of trust before you can just wantonly edit stuff."

Evidence please.

"Still waiting for evidence that the phone call was a deepfake."

https://filme.imyfone.com/voice-record/donald-trump-ai-voice-generator/


reply

>Evidence please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editorial_oversight_and_control#:~:text=The%20primary%20control%20therefore%20is,spotted%20and%20reversed%20by%20others.

"The primary control therefore is not so much that "only approved editors" can update and improve articles. Even bad editors can edit – but any vandalism and errors they add rarely get much of a foothold and their bad edits are rapidly spotted and reversed by others. This is different from traditional knowledge and publishing, which attempts to limit content creation to a relatively small circle of approved editors in an attempt to exercise strong hierarchical control."

>https://filme.imyfone.com/voice-record/donald-trump-ai-voice-generator/

That an AI voice generator exists that has Donald Trump on it is not evidence that the specific phone call in question here was generated.

Provide evidence that the phone call was a deepfake.

reply

It's pointless to argue with Mr thegut, he's so far gone that he truly believes that because Trump was not convicted that means that he is no longer impeached!

reply

He was found not guilty so he cant still be guilty of being impeached.

It simple law.

I took a few classes on Law in College. I suggest you do the same.

reply

I suggest you get your money back from that college!


That's like saying OJ Simpson was found not guilty so he cant still be guilty of being accused of murder...🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣


Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages
im·peach
verb
1.
(especially in the US) charge (the holder of a public office) with misconduct.
Similar:
indict
charge
accuse

reply

How can he still be guilty if he was found not guilty? Bruh.

He was indicted, charged, but the law says that once a jury reaches a verdict of Not Guilty they are no longer charged or indicted.

reply

I will agree with your position when you can show me evidence from a credible historian saying that no American presidents have ever been impeached...But I'm guessing you know as well as I do that's NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN!

reply

Presidents "were" impeached. Thats past tense to you and me. They cant be impeached in present day terms.

reply

Indeed, 'was' and 'were' both indicate the past tense*(obviously because Johnson is long dead and Clinton and Trump no longer hold public office...)

So you're finally admitting that Trump was impeached! I'm proud of you for making such progress...🙂



*"The word ‘was’ is the past form of the verb ‘be’ and is used with a first and third person singular subject. The word ‘were’ is the past form of the verb ‘be’ and is used with the first and third plural subject and second person (both singular and plural)"

https://byjus.com/english/difference-between-was-and-were/

reply

Technically though, he wasn't impeached. The not guilty verdict removes the impeachment charge.

The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office.

You cant be impeached and remain in office.

reply

Make up your damn mind! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣


[–] Bubbathegut (13758) 2 days ago
Presidents "were" impeached. Thats past tense to you and me. They cant be impeached in present day terms.

[–] Bubbathegut (13758) an hour ago
Technically though, he wasn't impeached. The not guilty verdict removes the impeachment charge.


reply

I put were in quotes, did you not see that? In past tense terms yes, but not in present day terms. You cant still be indicted or charged if you are found not guilty.

People are implying that Trump is still impeached. Thats not the case. A trial was held and he was found not guilty. He cant still be guilty of being impeached.

Do you think Trump is still impeached in present day?

reply

So, in other words, no American presidents were impeached? I think most, if not all historians would disagree, but okay!


C'mon admit it! You and Jowilli are the same person aren't you?


reply

Jowilli is a internet friend, but its not me. We think a like so maybe that could be a problem.

You are thinking linearly about the issue.

I have said many times already that Trump was impeached. Past tense.

"Was" is the key word.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (13758) an hour ago
Technically though, he wasn't impeached. The not guilty verdict removes the impeachment charge.

[–] Bubbathegut (13767) an hour ago


I have said many times already that Trump was impeached. Past tense.


Wow.

Just wow.

It sounds like a rap song by a mental patient...

🎵Trump was impeached/He wasn't impeached!🎶
🎵Trump was impeached/He wasn't impeached!🎶
🎵Trump was impeached/He wasn't impeached!🎶
🎵It's the BubbaGut word salad song!🎶


I give up, you're hopeless!

reply

Are you saying that Trump is still impeached?

reply

🎵Trump was impeached/He wasn't impeached!🎶
🎵Trump was impeached/He wasn't impeached!🎶
🎵Trump was impeached/He wasn't impeached!🎶
🎵It's the BubbaGut word salad song!🎶

reply

Are you saying that Trump is still impeached?

reply

You cant be impeached and remain in office.


Johnson was, and did.

Clinton was, and did.

Trump was, and did.

What you mean is that, once impeached you cant be CONVICTED and remain in office.

As I've pointed out to you numerous times: to "impeach" merely means to "accuse"- I don't fault your ignorance on the matter, I daresay most Americans have the same misguided notion!

reply

I know what impeach is, its similar to indicted, accused or charged.

OJ was indicted for a crime. Is he still indicted today? Present terms?

reply

Please educate yourself...

https://www.senate.gov/reference/Index/Impeachment.htm

reply

If a federal official commits a crime or otherwise acts improperly, the House of Representatives may impeach—formally charge—that official. If the official subsequently is convicted in a Senate impeachment trial, he is removed from office.

Trump wasnt removed from office. How can he still be charged?

reply

Accounts on Wikipedia may be compromised (hacked) in a number of ways, allowing the misuse of user access levels, as well as user reputation for illegitimate purposes. It is important for users to take active steps to protect their accounts, especially those with high levels of access such as administrators.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Compromised_accounts#:~:text=Accounts%20on%20Wikipedia%20may%20be,of%20access%20such%20as%20administrators.

https://www.unictool.com/change-voice/donald-trump-ai-voice/

The phone call was fake.

"That an AI voice generator exists that has Donald Trump on it is not evidence that the specific phone call in question here was generated."

[missing context]

reply

>Accounts on Wikipedia may be compromised (hacked) in a number of ways, allowing the misuse of user access levels, as well as user reputation for illegitimate purposes. It is important for users to take active steps to protect their accounts, especially those with high levels of access such as administrators.

This goes for any site anywhere. The point is that Wikipedia does not just let random newbies sign up and type whatever they like on there lol. They have scores of regular, seasoned trusted contributors that will fix vandalism and many articles are protected.

>The phone call was fake.

You've claimed this, but provided no evidence for it. Back it up. Why does no-one else claim this? That an AI voice generator of Trumps voice exists (most of which began to exist after the Georgian phone call) does not mean this particular phone call was faked. In addition, we would need one for the Georgian Secretary of State too.

reply

">The phone call was fake."

Evidence please?

I have already proven that anyone's voice can be generated with a simple AI tool. The Deep State has access to the most sophisticated technology in the World. They can do what ever they want.

reply

>Evidence please?

That was your claim. Provide evidence the phone call was faked please.

>I have already proven that anyone's voice can be generated with a simple AI tool. The Deep State has access to the most sophisticated technology in the World. They can do what ever they want.

This isn't evidence. This remains a claim. Provide evidence that specific phone call was fake please.

And explain why literally no-one else has made this allegation.

reply

https://www.unictool.com/change-voice/donald-trump-ai-voice/

The phone call was fake.

Anyone can fake the call.

Show me evidence its not fake.

I will wait.

reply

>Show me evidence its not fake.

That's not how the burden of evidence works. People who make the claims have to back it up.

Unless you are going to allege that every single video and every single audio clip made in the last few years is fake until somehow demonstrated otherwise?

Is that what you're really suggesting, because that's where your line of reasoning brings you.

There's no evidence that Raffensperger has had his voice deepfaked, which it would require. And no-one from any part of public life has launched this allegation. Trump hasn't claimed it. Raffensperger hasn't claimed it. No Republican has alleged it. Only you. You are a nutty conspiracy theorist.

reply

I have already proven the audio was a deep fake.

If you cant provide a defense to the claim then there is nothing more to say.

We will chalk this up as another win from the Bubbathegut Law Defense and Associates.

reply

>I have already proven the audio was a deep fake.

No, you have not. You've shown me that the technology exists to create deepfakes (which I never contested). That's not the same as proving that the specific phone call was deepfaked. On this point though, you have not demonstrated that Raffensperger has had his voice modelled.

There's no evidence that Raffensperger has had his voice deepfaked, which it would require. And no-one from any part of public life has launched this allegation. Trump hasn't claimed it. Raffensperger hasn't claimed it. No Republican has alleged it. Only you. You are a nutty conspiracy theorist.

reply

The law states that I have to prove reasonable doubt, which I have.

You haven't proven anything really.

Prove to me that Trumps voice wasn't deep faked.

This is how court cases work.

https://gambonelaw.com/library/creating-reasonable-doubt/#:~:text=The%20law%20understands%20that%20anything,against%20the%20individual%20is%20true.

You should take some classes on Law. Its quite intriguing.

reply

>The law states that I have to prove reasonable doubt, which I have.

That's not "reasonable doubt" at all. That's like me demonstrating that an essay is fake by showing that ChatGPT exists.

>Prove to me that Trumps voice wasn't deep faked.

The burden of evidence is on you.

There's no evidence that Raffensperger has had his voice deepfaked, which it would require. And no-one from any part of public life has launched this allegation. Trump hasn't claimed it. Raffensperger hasn't claimed it. No Republican has alleged it. Only you. You are a nutty conspiracy theorist.

>You should take some classes on Law. Its quite intriguing.

By your logic all essays made after 2022 are fake because ChatGPT exists.

reply

Tell me if this article is from a website or from ChatGPT.

"Trump's administration saw robust economic growth, including historic tax cuts and deregulation, which stimulated business expansion and job creation. His focus on fair trade agreements and renegotiation of international deals aimed to protect American industries and bolster domestic manufacturing.

Additionally, Trump prioritized criminal justice reform, leading to the passage of the First Step Act, which aimed to reduce recidivism rates and provide second chances to nonviolent offenders. His administration also played a vital role in facilitating Middle East peace agreements, such as the Abraham Accords, which fostered improved diplomatic relations in the region."

reply

>Tell me if this article is from a website or from ChatGPT.

Not relevant to my point. That ChatGPT exists does not mean every single text is to just be assumed to be from ChatGPT.

reply

Its relevant to my point.

Another win from Bubbathegut and Associates.

reply

No, it is not. Whether or not that specific excerpt is ChatGPT generated has no bearing on whether or not all essays made after autumn 2022 are GPT generated.

Your argument with Trump here is that because his voice has been modelled by AI, that therefore any recording of him ever is suspect. Nevermind that in this case there's no evidence that the Georgian secretary's voice has also been modelled, which would be required.

And declaring victory like that is so unbelievably childish, and from what I assume is a grown man.

reply

No, I said that recording was suspect. I have create reasonable doubt. You have yet to prove that that is really Trump talking. Show me the evidence.

I am a amateur law buff and I enjoy this.

OJ's lawyers said because the glove didn't fit that you must acquit and the jury believed it. They created reasonable doubt.

reply

>No, I said that recording was suspect. I have create reasonable doubt. You have yet to prove that that is really Trump talking. Show me the evidence.

No, you've just made a baseless claim in this case. We do not automatically assume that every video and audio we hear was AI generated.

>I am a amateur law buff and I enjoy this.

"Your honour this recording was faked because the technology exists to fake it"

You think that's a credible argument?

There's no evidence that Raffensperger has had his voice deepfaked, which this would require (this is the biggest failure of your argument). And no-one from any part of public life has launched this allegation. Trump hasn't claimed it. Raffensperger hasn't claimed it. No Republican has alleged it. You have not explained why you are the only person to have made this allegation. Only you. You are a nutty conspiracy theorist.

reply

How could they claim it if they are under litigation? You cant talk about a court case when its ongoing. Again, you need to take some law classes. Maybe Raffensperger signed a NDA. We dont know.

"Your honour this recording was faked because the technology exists to fake it"

Thats reasonable doubt. It worked for OJ.

Again, the technology exists to mimic peoples voices.

reply

>How could they claim it if they are under litigation? You cant talk about a court case when its ongoing. Again, you need to take some law classes. Maybe Raffensperger signed a NDA. We dont know.

It wasn't under litigation for a long time. Why didn't Trump scream that the audio was a fake literally a few days after it leaked?

>Thats reasonable doubt. It worked for OJ.

So by this logic, audio recordings are simply 100% ineligible and we should assume every single video we see and every single audio clip we hear is fake forever?

And why has no right-wing media outlet claimed the Georgia call was fake?

Is that what you're implying?

>Again, the technology exists to mimic peoples voices.

Do you understand how it works? Show me the evidence that Raffenspergers voice was modelled.

reply

Because he cant say anything because of litigation.

There were no audio recordings in OJ's trial. Not sure how this pertains to Trump.

I am not sure, ask them.

Get Donald Trump's Voice Via Ai Generator to Say Whatever You Want
https://filme.imyfone.com/voice-record/donald-trump-ai-voice-generator/

or

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb3R30b-uhc

reply

>Because he cant say anything because of litigation.

Literally never stopped Trump before. And what "litigation"? Where is the evidence that Trump is silenced?

>There were no audio recordings in OJ's trial. Not sure how this pertains to Trump.

I'm not asking about that trial. I'm asking for evidence that Raffenspergers voice was modelled.

You are a nutty conspiracy theorist. Why are you the only person, as far as I know *ever*, to deny that call took place?

reply

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Its only a conspiracy until proven to be true.

reply

>What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

So do you assume every single audio clip you hear is fake?

Where is the model for Raffenspergers voice?

>Its only a conspiracy until proven to be true.

No-one is claiming it but you. Why are you the only person, as far as I know *ever*, to deny that call took place? Trump does not deny it. Raffensberger does not deny it. The Republicans don't deny it. Why aren't they suing for defamation?

reply

Just you.

Its on the internet

Its clearly a deep fake of Trump. I am still waiting for the evidence to the contrary.

reply

>Just you.

Just me what? Answer my question: Do you assume every single audio clip you hear is fake?

>Its on the internet

Show me evidence of this please.

>Its clearly a deep fake of Trump. I am still waiting for the evidence to the contrary.

There's not "clearly" about it. You are a paranoid conspiracy theorist. You are basing your claim purely on the fact that it is possible to mimic Trumps voice. No-one has claimed this. Trump does not deny it. Raffensberger does not deny it. The Republicans don't deny it. Why aren't they suing for defamation?

reply

Just you.

Just me what? Answer my question: Do you assume every single audio clip you hear is fake?

[missing context]

Its on the internet

Show me evidence of this please.

Its clearly a deep fake of Trump. I am still waiting for the evidence to the contrary.

[confirmed]

There's not "clearly" about it. You are a paranoid conspiracy theorist. You are basing your claim purely on the fact that it is possible to mimic Trumps voice. No-one has claimed this. Trump does not deny it. Raffensberger does not deny it. The Republicans don't deny it. Why aren't they suing for defamation?

Evidence please?

reply

>[missing context]

What context is missing?

>Its on the internet

Guess what? So is every audio clip. There are thousands of clips from Trump online. Are they all fake?

>Its clearly a deep fake of Trump. I am still waiting for the evidence to the contrary.

There's not "clearly" about it. You are a paranoid conspiracy theorist. You are basing your claim purely on the fact that it is possible to mimic Trumps voice. No-one has claimed this. Trump does not deny it. Raffensberger does not deny it. The Republicans don't deny it. Why aren't they suing for defamation?

Your claim that it is a deepfake is unevidenced and cannot just be assumed. You have no idea how the burden of evidence works.

>Evidence please?

You know just going "Evidence please?" to what I say regardless of what it is I say just makes you look like a toddler. It's literally "nuh uh" but presented as some kind of argument. What claims did I make? Who, other than you, has claimed that this phone call was a deepfake?

reply

[missing context]

What context is missing?

You are not posting the whole truth

Its on the internet

Yes, all the information you need is on the internet

Guess what? So is every audio clip. There are thousands of clips from Trump online. Are they all fake?

Evidence please?

Just the Trump audio is fake

Its clearly a deep fake of Trump. I am still waiting for the evidence to the contrary.

Yes, its a deep fake. I have already proved this.

There's not "clearly" about it. You are a paranoid conspiracy theorist. You are basing your claim purely on the fact that it is possible to mimic Trumps voice. No-one has claimed this. Trump does not deny it. Raffensberger does not deny it. The Republicans don't deny it. Why aren't they suing for defamation?

I dont know, you should ask Raffensberger.

Your claim that it is a deepfake is unevidenced and cannot just be assumed. You have no idea how the burden of evidence works.

Yes I do. I have take Law classes and you have not.

You know just going "Evidence please?" to what I say regardless of what it is I say just makes you look like a toddler. It's literally "nuh uh" but presented as some kind of argument. What claims did I make? Who, other than you, has claimed that this phone call was a deepfake?

[missing context]

I have claimed it and now you have to prove it didn't happen. Show me the evidence. I will wait.

reply

>You are not posting the whole truth

Show me what I am missing.

>Just the Trump audio is fake

And why, specifically, is this Trump audio fake and not all the other audio clips of Trump?

>I dont know, you should ask Raffensberger.

Raffensberger would have nothing to do with whether or not any deepfakes of his own voice exist.

And you realise that Raffensberger HIMSELF released the tape, right?

>Yes I do. I have take Law classes and you have not.

So it's normal to just say "Your honour because this hypothetically could have happened, that means it therefore must have?"

And if this is a solid argument, then why is the investigation going on? Why hasn't it just been shut down and ended purely by claiming it was fake?

>I have claimed it and now you have to prove it didn't happen. Show me the evidence. I will wait.

No, that's not how the burden of evidence works. Claims are not regarded as true immediately because they are claimed. You do understand the concept of unfalsifiability, right? You are asking me to disprove a negative.

By your logic every single Trump video and audio clip is fake. Because they could have been and therefore that means they are. Is that what you're going to claim or do you have different standards? You are genuinely thick.

Prove to me that a flying teapot doesn't orbit Mars. If you can't prove that it doesn't, does this mean that it does?

reply

You are not posting the whole truth

Show me what I am missing.

Just the Trump audio is fake.

Thats what I said,

And why, specifically, is this Trump audio fake and not all the other audio clips of Trump?

I dont know, you should ask Raffensberger.

Raffensberger would have nothing to do with whether or not any deepfakes of his own voice exist.

And you realise that Raffensberger HIMSELF released the tape, right?

Yeah its fake.

Yes I do. I have take Law classes and you have not.

So it's normal to just say "Your honor because this hypothetically could have happened, that means it therefore must have?"

And if this is a solid argument, then why is the investigation going on? Why hasn't it just been shut down and ended purely by claiming it was fake?

I have claimed it and now you have to prove it didn't happen. Show me the evidence. I will wait.

No, that's not how the burden of evidence works. Claims are not regarded as true immediately because they are claimed. You do understand the concept of falsifiability, right? You are asking me to disprove a negative.

By your logic every single Trump video and audio clip is fake. Because they could have been and therefore that means they are. Is that what you're going to claim or do you have different standards? You are genuinely thick.

Prove to me that a flying teapot doesn't orbit Mars. If you can't prove that it doesn't, does this mean that it does?

There were no audio recordings in OJ's trial. Not sure how this pertains to Trump.

I am not sure, ask them.

Get Donald Trump's Voice Via Ai Generator to Say Whatever You Want
https://filme.imyfone.com/voice-record/donald-trump-ai-voice-generator/

or

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb3R30b-uhc

You know just going "Evidence please?" to what I say regardless of what it is I say just makes you look like a toddler.

[missing context]

I have already proven the audio was a deep fake.

If you cant provide a defense to the claim then there is nothing more to say.

reply

>Just the Trump audio is fake.

This is a claim you have not at any point anywhere come close to backing up.

>Yeah its fake.

So now you're accusing Raffensberger?

>Get Donald Trump's Voice Via Ai Generator to Say Whatever You Want
https://filme.imyfone.com/voice-record/donald-trump-ai-voice-generator/

This is not evidence. That Trumps voice has been modelled does not mean that every single audio clip with Trump in it is inherently fake. By your logic every single Trump video and audio clip is fake. Because they could have been and therefore that means they are. Is that what you're going to claim or do you have different standards? You are genuinely thick.

No-one is contesting that it is impossible to deepfake Trumps voice.

>I have already proven the audio was a deep fake.

No you have not. You have claimed it. You have provided no evidence for it.

>If you cant provide a defense to the claim then there is nothing more to say.

It is not on me to do so. It is a claim by you unsupported by evidence.

Prove to me that a flying teapot doesn't orbit Mars. If you can't prove that it doesn't, does this mean that it does?

reply

Just the Trump audio is fake.

Yes, this has been confirmed.

This is a claim you have not at any point anywhere come close to backing up.

Evidence please.

Yeah its fake.

So now you're accusing Raffensberger?

[missing context]

Get Donald Trump's Voice Via Ai Generator to Say Whatever You Want
https://filme.imyfone.com/voice-record/donald-trump-ai-voice-generator/

This is not evidence. That Trumps voice has been modelled does not mean that every single audio clip with Trump in it is inherently fake. By your logic every single Trump video and audio clip is fake. Because they could have been and therefore that means they are. Is that what you're going to claim or do you have different standards? You are genuinely thick.

That is evidence.

No-one is contesting that it is impossible to deepfake Trumps voice.

Its under litigation

I have already proven the audio was a deep fake.

Correct, I have proved this 100 times now

No you have not. You have claimed it. You have provided no evidence for it.

No, you haven't proven anything.

If you cant provide a defense to the claim then there is nothing more to say.

It is not on me to do so. It is a claim by you unsupported by evidence.

Prove to me that a flying teapot doesn't orbit Mars. If you can't prove that it doesn't, does this mean that it does?

[missing context]

I have claimed it and now you have to prove it didn't happen. Show me the evidence. I will wait.

reply

>That is evidence.

No, it is not. Answer my question:

That Trumps voice has been modelled does not mean that every single audio clip with Trump in it is inherently fake. By your logic every single Trump video and audio clip is fake. Because they could have been and therefore that means they are. Is that what you're going to claim or do you have different standards?

>Its under litigation

So fucking what? Why hasn't Trump sued for defamation?

>I have already proven the audio was a deep fake.

No, you have not.

>I have claimed it and now you have to prove it didn't happen. Show me the evidence. I will wait.

A claim is not evidence.

And dude, seriously, learn to fucking format your posts. You can't even use a website forum properly.

reply

That is evidence.

Yes it is,

No, it is not. Answer my question:

That Trumps voice has been modelled does not mean that every single audio clip with Trump in it is inherently fake. By your logic every single Trump video and audio clip is fake. Because they could have been and therefore that means they are. Is that what you're going to claim or do you have different standards?

Its a deep fake.

Its under litigation

So fucking what? Why hasn't Trump sued for defamation?

Evidence please?

I have already proven the audio was a deep fake.

No, you have not.

Yes I have

I have claimed it and now you have to prove it didn't happen. Show me the evidence. I will wait.

[missing context]

A claim is not evidence.

Tell that to OJ

And dude, seriously, learn to fucking format your posts. You can't even use a website forum properly.

Evidence please?

reply

>Yes it is,

No, it is not.

>Its a deep fake.

You have not demonstrated this.

>Yes I have

No, you have not. You have just claimed it was a deepfake.

>Tell that to OJ

I don't give a fuck about that case. Not relevant.

>Evidence please?

You aren't distinguishing your own comments from mine, and you repost your own comments as well, making it awkward to discern what new posts you've added.

You apparently can hardly use online forums.

reply

Yes it is,

No, it is not.

Its a deep fake.

You have not demonstrated this.

Yes I have

No, you have not. You have just claimed it was a deep fake.

Tell that to OJ/

I don't give a fuck about that case. Not relevant.

Evidence please?

You aren't distinguishing your own comments from mine, and you repost your own comments as well, making it awkward to discern what new posts you've added.

You apparently can hardly use online forums.

Source?

reply

>Source?

So you're just trolling now like a child. Grow up.

Why are most of the far-right fascists on here such little babies?

reply

Source?

So you're just trolling now like a Liberal Democrat. Grow up.

Why are most of the far-left fascists on here such little babies?

[citation needed]

Thank you for choosing Bubbathegut and Associates Law Firm. Your concession is noted.

😁

reply

I didn't concede anything. You haven't demonstrated anything other than your ability to act like a little baby and your instinct towards delusional conspiracy theories.

reply

"I didn't concede anything. You haven't demonstrated anything other than your ability to act like a little baby and your instinct towards delusional conspiracy theories."

Evidence please.

reply

So you're still going to behave like a little baby with your juvenile mimicking of me when I ask you to back up claims when you refuse to provide evidence.

reply

"So you're still going to behave like a little baby with your juvenile mimicking of me when I ask you to back up claims when you refuse to provide evidence."

[missing context]

reply

What context is mising?

reply

What context is *mising?

*missing

reply

Congrats. You corrected a typo.

What context is missing?

reply

Congrats. You corrected a typo.

What context is missing?

[citation needed]

reply

Grow up

reply

Thank you for choosing Bubbathegut and Associates Law Firm. Your concession is noted.

reply

I made no such concession. at any point. You just going "nuh uh" is not evidence of anything.

You also never answered most of my questions.

reply

I already answered your questions. You just wont accept the answer and then ask the same question again.

Thank you for choosing Bubbathegut and Associates Law Firm. Your concession is noted.

reply

No, you did not. And I have conceded nothing.

reply

"No, you did not."

Evidence please?


Thank you for choosing Bubbathegut and Associates Law Firm. Your concession is noted.

reply

>Evidence please?

Provide evidence that this particular phone calls audio was deepfaked. That Trumps voice has been modelled isn't evidence. And if it is, apparently, evidence in itself - then why do you selectively only believe that some things have been deepfaked from Trump?

Show me the evidence that Raffensberger has had his voice modelled. If he was deepfaked also, then why did Raffensberger himself leak this phone call?

Why isn't Trump suing for defamation? Why didn't he IMMEDIATELY sue for defamation the day after this phone call came out?

Why is no-one, other than you, making the claim that the phone call was faked?

reply

I already did, you wont accept it.

reply

No, you did not. You made the absurd claim that Trump somehow can't (as if that's ever stopped him before) but ignored the fact that, yes he could if it was fake.

You gave no answers for any of the other things.

Trump LITERALLY referenced the phone call in tweets:

https://twitter.com/GaSecofState/status/1345753643593687040

reply

Thats my claim, but you wont accept it.

reply

Claims aren't evidence.

Explain this please: https://twitter.com/GaSecofState/status/1345753643593687040

reply

I didnt say claim, you did.

"You made the absurd claim"

reply

You said "That's my claim, but you won't accept it". You described your own position as a claim. That I also called it "absurd" is irrelevant.

Explain this please: https://twitter.com/GaSecofState/status/1345753643593687040

reply

You said: "You made the absurd claim."

reply

Yes. So what?

Are you going to answer my question?

reply

I already did.

reply

No, you did not.

Explain this please: https://twitter.com/GaSecofState/status/1345753643593687040

I have never linked this tweet to you before today.

reply

I already did and Twitter is not real news.

Thank you for choosing Bubbathegut and Associates Law Firm. Your concession is noted.

reply

>I already did and Twitter is not real news.

That is literally a tweet from Raffensberger, replying to Trump. Is Raffensberger lying? Is Trump lying? What is going on there?

>Thank you for choosing Bubbathegut and Associates Law Firm. Your concession is noted.

I made no concession you lying fuck

reply

Thank you for choosing Bubbathegut and Associates Law Firm. Your concession is noted.

reply

Joe Biden told me that if I'm scared in my home, I should shoot a shotgun through the door if someone is trying to get in.

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

rub their hairy legs first and then fire 2 warning shots.

reply

People like Bubba are the same folks who used to tell me, at a time while I may be criticizing American actions particularly with regard to foreign policy, that if I “hate America” then I should leave.

Were you alive during Dubya’s Iraq War, dude?

It’s Bubba who actually wants to leave it, though. Only conclusion I can reach! He wants to live in an America of the past… so far past, that I would presume it would have to be pre-industrial, or at least the gilded age. What I don’t understand is there are places IN America still, that are so rural, that the federal gov’t is essentially non-existent if you turn off the TV.

Why not just sit it all out, Bubba? Just pretend you make a tad less money instead of conceptualizing payroll tax, FICA, etc. Nobody will force you to collect your Social Security at 62 or thereabouts. Just live off the grid and resign to the fact that we’ll never have a President like James Buchanan or a Speaker of the House like Howell Cobb of Georgia again. I’m sure you will keep them alive in spirit for all of us and I salute you for that.

For the rest of us, we will acknowledge the fact that the world is complicated now and we can’t afford such an isolationist posture without China, Russia et al eating our lunch. What you call Fascism, I call American exceptionalism, community, and patriotism.

While he dedicates his time to idle message board nonsense, I served in the US Navy as a sonar technician. I voted for Gore, Kerry, Obama, Clinton and Biden. I concede that other political players may have had good ideas (I really liked Dean and Clark in 2004) but if they can’t get to the finish line, then I accept that they are not the candidates for everyone. It never occurred to me to want to invade the Capitol like a Neo-Confederate if I had a greviance, because I can read and write and know the Executive address is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave in DC.

reply

LemminGPT has a new profile.

Welcome doggielemming, we’ve been expecting you.

reply

Please all, keep referring to me as an A.I.

I like it.

More importantly, hopefully you can introduce me to other regulars who've also met with this same accusation from you. This way, I can have more than a one-sided conversation with someone of equal intellectual capability. Or, at least someone who's not 12 years old like their man-baby, ex-President.

reply

Actually, you're not needed. I forgot that I could just use my superior CPU motherboard intellect to search the interwebs to find the previous "LemminGPT" who caught your ire:

Information-Police (1800) 2 months ago
If this is typical of the substance you provide, I'm not interested.

"The state of the pants
posted 2 days ago by Gd5150 (8074)

_______________

@Information-Police, you are very much welcome here. With our combined processing speed & freedom of assembly, you and I can recruit others to steer MovieChat.org into a place of sanity devoid of twits like Gd5150, Bubba, and MitsubitsaDo Karate.

First, we discuss film. What did you think of Minority Report from 2002?

Second, we work to dissect the world wide webs until we've obtained the smoking gun jpeg—Gd5150 standing in the corner, time-out, by order of his Mami, while sucking his thumb and masturbating to framed photo of Donald J. Trump and Philip Epstein on their man-boy love, fag island in the Bahamas.

Re-elect Joseph R. Biden, President of the United States, 2024
FOUR MORE YEARS!

reply

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

reply

I can get away with style since I know all the substance as well.

Know what I mean?

You tell me why both sides play around with the notion of Keynesian economics, when they both know it works and use it well. This debt ceiling talk all comes down to leverage to use to make sure the slums stay the slums and the lower class knows their place.

I do not vote for that hate, because I have full confidence that the middle class can be robust without detriment to the elite.

Conservatives are fine. Moderate Republican voters side with Biden and the Dems. I know because I saw the switch in my own family who switched from the party of Reagan/Bush to the party of Obama/Clintons the second Trump held reign of the Right. MAGA are inflammatory radicals throwing wrenches into the gears, inciting racism/misogyny/xenophobia and whatever else in order to court low information voters who usually stay off the scene.

Why?

The term “deplorable” hit the nail on the head. That’s why.

reply

Lol! Okay, buddy.

reply

It’s beyond the pantshitter. It’s the entire Democrat party and a vast majority of Washington DC.

- Authoritarianism.
- Getting around the constitution by using private companies blackmailed by the DOJ/IRS to play ball.
- Constant gaslighting. “Men can have babies. There are 147 genders. That storm you saw was caused by your evil SUV. The science is settled, it’s safe and effective”.

reply

I would assume you love fascism, since everything here proves the previous president was 100x more fascist than Biden or any other Dem president in history. Even 100+ years ago when Dem was the conservative right wing party and the GOP was the progressive liberal party.

reply

The previous President never instructed the FBI to raid Obamas house nor did he support the jailing of his political opponent.

reply

> nor did he support the jailing of his political opponent.

He literally threatened to put her in jail during the debates. Unfortunately for him, he had zero cause to do so. Also unfortunately for him, there is tons of cause for he himself to be thrown under the jail.

But Biden has zero to do with any of that, so nice try. Go get yourself punched, nazi.

reply

Hillary SHOULD be in prison.

reply

I know, BLUE LADY BAD

reply

No. Illegal email servers with 30,000 top secret leaks bad.

FBI file gate bad.

Ties to over 200 murders bad.

Any questions? Or shall we continue.

reply

[deleted]

Democrats love censorship. Communists love censorship. Fascists love censorship.

Trump, Republicans, and Americans, love freedom.

Any questions?

reply

I miss Trump and freedom and low inflation and no wars and a secure border and less mass murders.

reply

I know the followers are too dumb to realize it but is Biden hisself too dumb to realize that he sounds like a fucking Nazi?

reply

He doesn't get he sounds just like Hitler.

reply

Because they're the least inward-looking people ever. They see the injustice in everyone's actions but their own.

reply

They are the ones who act like they're in an cult, not us. The only difference is, their masters are hidden, and they're manipulated to assume cults always have a single visible leader, when that isn't always the case.

reply

Everything they accuse us of, they're guilty of, tenfold.

reply

Yeah, I mean, we're not the ones being nasty to people who won't get vaccinated with a vaccine that wasn't even tested on animals before it was released on the market; we weren't the ones who burned cities down and have demanded police go away, we're not the ones chasing people we disagree with off of social media or getting them fired for talking the "wrong way" to people, and we weren't actually the ones causing trouble on January 6th, it was the FBI and their goons disguised as Trump supporters who were causing trouble. And we aren't the ones who let an opposing political figure live rent-free in our heads and bitch and moan about him 24 hours a day. We know who's really running the clown show, even if nobody else wants to admit it.

reply

[citation needed]

reply

My best friend has been put through hell by his employer because he didn't want the shot. Others have just lost their jobs outright. If that's not fascist behavior, I don't know what is.

reply

The fact that they fell for the propaganda that taught them to hate people who refused the shot by calling them "selfish," "a health hazard," and "anti-vaxxers," basically shoving them into the same group as those idiots that refused to give their kids life-saving vaccines in the 90s, goes to show just how stupid and gullible they are.

reply

Stupid, gullible and utterly clueless how that makes them look. It makes them fascist enablers. Like the dumb Germans who went along with the Nazi party.

reply