:rofl:

List of changes in 2020:

https://ballotpedia.org/Changes_to_election_dates,_procedures,_and_administration_in_response_to_the_coronavirus_(COVID-19)_pandemic,_2020

Mostly minor extensions of deadlines and early voting/mail voting. Including in DNC-controlled, liberal bastions like Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Montana.

Or in NOS’s world: massive, sinister liberal election interference.

The appropriate response to such a level of stupidity.

Would you agree that lockdowns were suppressing votes, then? — NOS4A2

I took a few seconds to google it and this is the first thing that came up:

Trump Extends Coronavirus Lockdown Until April 30

:chin:

After dangling the possibility of restarting the U.S. economy by Easter, Trump now says keeping deaths to 100,000 would be a ‘very good job.’

From Praxis’s link. I laughed out loud at “very good job.”

Apparently, the lockdowns were supposed to save lives rather than suppress votes. At least Trump seemed to think so.

Yeah, I’m beginning to see the pattern. If Trump or republicans do it, it’s fine. Unless the changes lead to democrats winning…then it’s election interference…from Republicans…or Biden suppressing votes…even though he wasn’t in office…

No, I guess I don’t get it.

It’s almost as if all of it is a bunch of bullshit. :chin:

What I've found is that conservative conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy only as long as there's no evidence of the conspiracy. As soon as real compelling evidence arises, they reject the conspiracy and find a new one.

They're like the hipsters of the conspiracy world. They only like stuff before it's cool.

The election was in November.

Maybe I misread what you were suggesting. You seemed to be suggesting that the lockdowns were designed for the purpose of voter suppression and not for the purpose of saving lives or generally mitigating the pandemic. I pointed out that at one point Trump extended the lockdowns, or at least took credit for doing so, in an effort to save lives. So even Trump thought that the point was mitigating the pandemic.

Anyway, besides all that I still don't get it. Republicans were far more comfortable voting in person than Democrats so employing a pandemic/lockdown to suppress voting would seem to be most effective against Democrats.

Suggesting? I was asking a question.

Okay, nevermind then.

Another enlightening conversation for the record books.

What I've found is that conservative conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy only as long as there's no evidence of the conspiracy. — flannel jesus

Well, once there's sound and agreed upon evidence of a conspiracy, it actually becomes a fact. And then the much hated "mainstream media" takes it as a fact too. And that's the last thing conspiracy theorists want to promote: same things as the "mainstream media" is reporting!

Think about it. How much do conspiracy theorists talk about the conspiracy of the White House neocons saying that Iraq was behind 9/11 too and there is a large and functioning WMD project in Iraq? Actually White House personnel would have gone to prison, if they wouldn't have been pardoned by the outgoing US President. You can watch now movies about it.

Hence that's something you can read in the mainstream media now. And in history books also...

That was totally not a leading question, then?

Because this certainly was...

My bad. :grimace:

Hi again ChatGPT! I have another question to help my simple-minded friend if you please. Can a question be suggestive?

ChatGPT
Hello again! Of course, I'd be happy to help. Yes, a question can definitely be suggestive. A suggestive question is one that implies a certain answer or a particular way of thinking. It may guide the person being asked the question towards a specific response or conclusion. This type of question can sometimes influence the person's thoughts or decisions, even if subtly.

For example, consider the following question:

"Sally, isn't it true that you enjoy spending time with your new friends?"

This question suggests that Sally does indeed enjoy spending time with her new friends and might make her more likely to answer in the affirmative, even if her true feelings are more complex. Suggestive questions can be used intentionally or unintentionally to influence conversations or gather information in a biased way. It's important to be aware of the wording of questions to ensure that they're fair and unbiased, especially in situations where objectivity is crucial.

I suppose this is what you would call a leading question?

ChatGPT
Exactly! A suggestive question is often referred to as a leading question. A leading question is designed to lead or guide the person being asked toward a specific answer or response. It can sway their perception or influence their opinion on a matter. In legal contexts, leading questions are sometimes used to shape a witness's testimony in a desired direction. However, in other situations where objectivity and fairness are important, it's generally best to avoid leading questions to ensure that the responses obtained are as unbiased as possible.

Most enlightening. Thanks for your assistance!

ChatGPT
You're very welcome! I'm glad I could help. If you or your friend have more questions in the future, don't hesitate to ask. Happy learning!

These trials would be a wonderful forum for Trump to prove the election was stolen. Doubtless he will try and do so, which begs my question: why does he keep trying to delay the trials? If you had proof an election was stolen against you, wouldn't you be on our soapbox every chance you could get? Especially in a court of law when the whole world is watching?

According to the defense they were given too much data in discovery that there is no chance they could go through it in time. But it might be for the same reason Biden’s DOJ and their special prosecutor waited until election year to start their trials: politics.

These trials would be a wonderful forum for Trump to prove the election was stolen. Doubtless he will, which begs my question: why does he keep trying to delay the trials? If you had proof an election was stolen against you, wouldn't you on our soapbox every chance you could get? — RogueAI

Your question seems meant to prove that Trump fears trial because he knows he's going to eventually be found guilty because otherwise he'd look forward to offering the proof of his innocence.

This assumes that what Trump wants most of all is to prove he's innocent or that the election was truly stolen. Trump doesn't care about that. What he wants is to be President. That's why he said the election was stolen. That's why he went through all those lawsuits, pressured local elections officials, and then tried to block Biden from being voted in.

His complaints about whether the process is delayed, expedited, modified, or whatever are targeted to getting himself re-elected, and he's playing this really well. Over 50% of Republicans say they will vote for him and less than 15% favor DeSantis, who is in second place. It's a dead tie with him versus Biden right now. These idictments are helping his cause. He kept himself center stage for 4 years while out of office and now he's a martyr.

What Trump wants is to be President. He's not in the business of setting the record straight or in proving his innocence.

I suspect that the reason Trump announced his candidacy abnormally early is that he anticipated being indicted. He knew that once he was a candidate he could play the "charges are all political and my opponent wants to put me out of the race" card. The candidacy itself is his defense, and because he can't prove he's innocent, that's all we are going to hear: "It's a witch hunt, they're bad people who hate our country and that's why they're out to get me, they've weaponized the Department of Justice, the deep state is doing this, I'm the only thing between them and you," etc. A lot of Trump supporters are already primed to believe this stuff due to non-stop conservative media preaching how evil liberals are, and a tendency to buy into QAnon-type conspiracy theories. Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence to them because they already believe the narrative that any charges brought against him are coming from evil people who want to destroy America. But in actuality, it is this cult-like reverence of Trump that could destroy America. That's the irony. While waving their flags and believing they are the patriots, they could vote in an authoritarian who does irreparable damage to our constitutional democracy.

Much talk of Trump “proving his innocence” in a system where innocence is assumed, or ought to be, at least if due process and fundamental human rights are any concern. These and other inclinations indicate that the inquisitorial authoritarianism rests solely in the hands of his haters.

Imagine committing some pretty heinous crimes but you've convinced half the population that if you were to be tried for your crimes, that's proof that those who would try you are evil authoritarians.

"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters" - the man certainly knows his target audience

You seem to be conflating "much talk" with the judicial process. The presumption of innocence does not mean that he does not have to defend himself against the charges brought against him. It will be up to the court and not "much talk" to reach a determination as to whether he is innocent.

Presumption of innocence. Plenty of that going on with Hunter Biden, and Hillary Clinton prior (“lock her up”) from the MAGA base. So they feel entitled to lecture others about it. No hypocrisy to see here.

Much talk of Trump “proving his innocence” in a system where innocence is assumed, or ought to be, at least if due process and fundamental human rights are any concern. These and other inclinations indicate that the inquisitorial authoritarianism rests solely in the hands of his haters. — NOS4A2

Sure, his innocence is assumed as a matter of legal principle and the burden is on the prosecution to establish his guilt. I agree with you on that. But if he is capable of proving his innocence, why wouldn't he do it? For example, with the classified documents case, if he declassified the documents prior to taking them to Mar-A-Lago, he could tell us when he did that, what the process was that was used, and who was present. Instead we get rambling and contradictory nonsense about how he could declassify documents with his mind, or that he once had the power to declassify as president but no longer does. Plus, we have the obstruction charges with contradictory statements of not having the classified documents, or having them but having a right to keep them, or of already having turned them over. It appears to me that Trump could have avoided all of this by simply turning over the documents when he was initially asked for them. Instead, he dragged his feet and refused to cooperate, had his lawyers lie, and got raided by the FBI and got caught in the lie, and now Trump and his team are all in deep legal trouble. And that's just one indictment.

The presumption of innocence is either a basic human right or it is not. You either believe in it or you don’t. Anyone who says Trump should prove his innocence believes one and not the other, and reveals why we ought to have such rights in the first place: to protect the innocent from people like them.

Lock him up! Lock him up!

Just as Trump abuses 'first amendment freedoms' to spread vitriol and encourage violence against his opponents, so he will also abuse 'the presumption of innocence' to portray all accusations against him as baseless conspiracies.

So, sure, he like anyone may be presumed innocent until proven guilty, but the evidence already in the public domain is damning. And as I've said many times, how can he even be part of a contest, if he doesn't agree to abide by the rules, which he patently ignores and flouts. Wouldn't even be allowed into a tennis tournament with that attitude, let alone an election for public office.

Mughsot!

:clap: :rofl:
Inmate No. P01135809 - RICO Suave!