The notion that Trump is pressuring Reffensperger to “find” votes is just another hoax. — NOS4A2

Trump literally said "So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state.” Perhaps I'm not following you. Are you using the word "find" (which you put in quotes) differently than when Trump used the same word.

But even beyond that. Raffensperger is a life long Republican and was (at the time) a Trump supporter. Are you seriously suggesting that there was some legal way that Raffensperger could have somehow changed the results of the GA election and that he didn't - because?

Oh no, his feelings. Poor guy.

Why did Trump need to pressure Raffensperger find fraudulent votes if he already had evidence that there were fraudulent votes? Why not just present the evidence that he already had? Well, the best explanation is that Trump didn't have the evidence, but wanted state officials to help 'find' it. And when Raffensperger didn't go along with this, Trump accused him of being in on the scam: "Because of what you've done to the president..." So, if you don't go along with Trump's claims of fraud, you are immediately the enemy and one of the ones responsible for the fraud? That's a thinly veiled threat. The whole thing is absurd, and let's remember this isn't just about Georgia. Were the state officials in every swing state part of the same conspiracy to get fraudulent votes for Biden? If so, why did so many Republicans do well in the 2020 election, other than Trump? Why didn't the election-riggers have enough Democrats elected so they could take control of the state legislatures? But most importantly, where is the evidence for this widespread election fraud? We never get it. The whole discussion is like an endless game of whack-a-mole.

Oh no, his feelings. Poor guy. — NOS4A2

Is it possible he felt threatened because Trump threatened him?

Only if there was a threat.

Only if there was a threat. — NOS4A2

This is Trump talking to Raffensperger
"And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal — it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know, what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen."

and here:
"But I mean all of this stuff is very dangerous stuff. When you talk about no criminality, I think it’s very dangerous for you to say that."

Maybe you have different criteria for a threat, but to my ears it sounds like one. Trump is saying that if Raffensperger does not do his bidding then he would be committing a criminal offense.

But even beyond that I'll repeat my previous question again. Raffensperger was/is a life long republican and at the time this happened he was a Trump supporter. If there was a legal way that he could have flipped GA to go for Trump - for what possible reason would he have NOT done that?

I don't get it. I only take a peek at this thread once in a very long time, but you guys are still responding to NOS4A2 after hundreds of pages. I can understand why he posts, but I don't know why you don't just ignore him. You won't change his mind. He won't change yours.

:up:

Because leaving his bullshit uncontested on a public forum could raise the idea with casual visitors it's a valid position. That's the only reason I ever reply to him.

:up:

I can understand why he posts, but I don't know why you don't just ignore him. — T Clark

Because ignoring someone is a very disrespectful act. I read all the posts from NOS and I find them interesting, whether I end up answering them or not, but it is true that he is one of the main TPF members I interact with the most.

I agree.
I am also interested in how the agents in play in these scenarios are connected or not to politics as the means of creating law and policy as means to ends. The persecution of Trump as a self-sufficient universe unrelated to the issues confronting us.

Maybe you have different criteria for a threat, but to my ears it sounds like one. Trump is saying that if Raffensperger does not do his bidding then he would be committing a criminal offense.

I’m curious to hear what definition of “threat” you are using to assure yourself that those are threats. It certainly doesn’t fall under any legal definition of threat, which is a felony. He never expressed any intent to harm anyone in anyway. He never said anything about doing his bidding, contrary to what you say.

But even beyond that I'll repeat my previous question again. Raffensperger was/is a life long republican and at the time this happened he was a Trump supporter. If there was a legal way that he could have flipped GA to go for Trump - for what possible reason would he have NOT done that?

Public and political pressure, maybe. One minute you’re conversing with lawyers on contesting a close election, the next you’re indicted on sham RICO charges. No one is safe in Georgia, apparently. I suspect it’s no coincidence he supported Georgia’s Election Integrity act the month Trump left office, and now the experts are warning him about problems with his Dominion voting machines. All conspiracy theorists, I guess.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/23/brad-raffensperger-georgia-dominion-voting-00103298

I think it's obvious it was a threat.

I don't know why you don't just ignore him. — T Clark

Maybe because the truth matters.

Changing his mind doesn't.

I don't get it. I only take a peek at this thread once in a very long time, but you guys are still responding to NOS4A2 after hundreds of pages. I can understand why he posts, but I don't know why you don't just ignore him. You won't change his mind. He won't change yours. — T Clark

I think it's important in a democratic environment to keep the discussion going, to hear out the other side, and respond to them. It seems to me that when people start shooting each other rather than talking is when they have have simply given up discussion and now define the other side as evil. I don't think Trump supporters are evil, but I do think they are wrong to continue to support him. I have to try to be intellectually honest and be open to the possibility that I am wrong, as well. I think this whole discussion about whether Trump committed crimes or was simply exercising his rights of free speech and legally contesting an election he disagreed with is a very important debate. It's going on across the country and indeed the world. If people are going to defend Trump I want to hear what the reasoning is.

Why should anyone want to debate about the most transformative figure in the history of the United States when we can talk about T Clark’s poetry?

Because leaving his bullshit uncontested on a public forum could raise the idea with casual visitors it's a valid position. That's the only reason I ever reply to him. — Benkei

But all of you are just making the same arguments over and over again and he is not being responsive. He doesn't engage with the argument, just blows it off. After a few respectful responses, anything more is just giving him an audience. He knows his opinions are not popular and he comes looking for a fight.

↪Benkei :up: — 180 Proof

Hey, you can't agree with both @Benkei and me, can you? We are disagreeing with each other.

Because ignoring someone is a very disrespectful act. — javi2541997

I have no problem with responding, especially if you have been specifically addressed. It's just that for most, it's just the same arguments over and over again. They'll give their argument. Nos4a2 will say "nunh unh."

Maybe because the truth matters. — Fooloso4

Giving an audience to someone who does not engage in good faith with the argument is not defending the truth.

I think it's important in a democratic environment to keep the discussion going, to hear out the other side, and respond to them. — GRWelsh

I've looked at some of your posts. They are thoughtful and well written. My problem is that responding to Nos4a2's posts just gives him an audience even when he refuses to argue in good faith.

most transformative figure in the history of the United States — NOS4A2

Yes... well...

we can talk about T Clark’s poetry? — NOS4A2

Hey! That's some damn good poetry.

Giving an audience to someone who does not engage in good faith with the argument is not defending the truth.

Do you think I do not believe what I am writing? The point of exposing my beliefs here, rather than some echo chamber, is to have them exposed to criticism.

Do you think I do not believe what I am writing? — NOS4A2

It's clear you believe what you're writing.

The point of exposing my beliefs here, rather than some echo chamber, is to have them exposed to criticism. — NOS4A2

But you don't respond to that criticism honestly. You just deny the value of the evidence and cynically reject all sources that don't agree with you.

Maybe he considers both points valid. I don't think there's a right and wrong here. Except for @javi2541997, who's just wrong.

If I believe what I am writing I am not operating on bad faith.

I try my best to explain my reasoning. I don’t try to deny the value of evidence. I try to include all of it—not just accusations, not just the evidence of the prosecution, not just what I read in the media, not just quotes out of context—but all of it, and it has served me quite well. If you can find where I went wrong, then please show me, but skirting around my back in an attempt to influence others to ignore and ostracize another member is cowardly.

skirting around my back in an attempt to influence others to ignore and ostracize another member is cowardly. — NOS4A2

The only thing I'm afraid of is putting more wood on the NOS4A2 fire.

It seems to me you both make valid points. I don't bother engaging directly with NOS4A2, I just ridicule his nonsense by linking him to posts wherein I update the latest facts – nails in the proverbial coffin – damning RICO-defendant1 & other MAGA morons. I rub NOS' denial in his cult's shitstorm which has been for years my way of both dismissing his self-deceiving bs and countering it. You're right, Clark, we don't have to waste time arguing with incorrigible – disingenuous – Trumpster idiocy but, like @Benkei, I don't leave that noise unchecked, using it/NOS like a rhetorical piñata whenever it suits me. :smirk:

The decision to deny Meadow's move to be heard in a Federal Court is made on the prerogatives of the State Court.

The Hatch Act finally appears from the shadows.