Of course Democrats would still blame him. This is politics. Politicians always blame their opponents. The key factor is how well the blaming will resonate with the public. If you act in ways that reinforce the blaming and give it credibility, it'll be more effective than if you don't.
It is cool to hate Trump in big cities and on the big social media platforms. This is neither of those. On West Mall, opposing Trump is very "uncool." Husker will agree with you. Switzer will agree with you, and that's more of a liability than an asset. Almost everybody else will rip you a new one. Evidence of fishiness can be shown in court. It doesn't have to just be fraud.
I don't think you care about what people in the West Mall think about you or base your views based its general opinion. That was my point. OMG. I think you are trying to miss the point. I hope so at least. Nevermind.
@Monahorns, he says he doesn't care, but he keeps trying to convince us he isn't a RINO, so he must care.
I don't think Deez is a RINO, but I think he Trump's demeanor bugs him more than most here. I see similar attitudes in some who are true conservatives but really want to remove Trumpism from the Republican Party and conservative inc. I think Trump's trade protectionism and monetary policy are very bad. I was never that interested in the wall. If the welfare state was greatly reduced and withheld from non-citizens I wouldn't care as much about immigration.
Ah Mona There in lies the rub/ Do you think stopping illegals from benefitting from welfare can acually happen?
Deez is not a RINO. I think he is a right leaning independent who probably votes conservative most times. No doubt, he is quick to point out warts on Trump, but most of the time I think they are very close to the truth. I do not recall a time where he espoused a liberal view and that is hard for an attorney.
If that was your point, then I'm not sure why you even commented. If I missed your point, then your point was terribly stated. You brought up studies that suggested fishiness. I said that evidence of fishiness (including but not limited to fraud) should be brought up in court. What big point are you making that I missed?
@Monahorns has pointed to a few blogs that claim "statistical fishiness". One even claimed they shared their insight with Powell yet I can't find any evidence that they were part of any affidavit submitted by her or Lin Wood. We do know that the evidence of "statistical fishiness" that were submitted in affidavits were quickly and easily shown to be seriously flawed by amateur sleuths. Extremely questionable data integrity (see Russell Ramsland) or absurd logic leaps in mathematical models from statisticians whose sole occupation is testifying on behalf of plaintiffs allowed any rational onlooker to discount the claims. Still they persevere, whether someone's intention is to sell books, get 15 minutes of fame or maybe they are a true believer oblivious to their own biases. Either way, the arguments submitted to the courts clearly lacked any semblance of persuasion and when held up to scrutiny of the Internet or a Defendants response, didn't merit moving forward when reviewed by over 100 judges of all political stripes.
Lol. I didn't see this earlier. "I won't get into it here. I'll talk **** about him behind his back instead like a 12 year old girl.". Kinda being a poon, man.
So the conspirators admitted to conspiracy. This is what you call the "Limited Hangout". It is where the government admits to some limited wrong doing or presents a scapegoat. It is a maneuver whose purpose is to give the appearance of accountability while also hiding everything that was done. https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/?amp=true&__twitter_impression=true
