So if it wasnt rigged, explain this.

[Wat_Tyler]

I remember the REDWAVE, it never showed up for the last election and it wasn't expected for this one.


How rude.

That's not fair since he kicked it. Litsters have a shorter lifespan than h000mans.


Maybe he's looking for Teh Missing 10.000.000 votes . . . .

 

[AceDesSpades]

Ghost posterer...

 

[JaySecrets]

I remember the REDWAVE, it never showed up for the last election and it wasn't expected for this one.


How rude.

Wasn't expected by WHO?!! The mainstream "legacy" media who was lying and covering up all the way along? The Dem party that has been living in a delusion for years while they have been bleeding voters? Conservatives have been PREDICTING that Red Wave. And expected or not, IT HAPPENED! THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN! THE DEMS JUST DON'T WANT TO HEAR WHAT THEY SAID.

 

[dmallord]

Maybe look at those maps again and reflect. Dems lost EVERYTHING in a red wave that rejected your entire party. The DISTRICT maps are even uglier for your side.

Indeed, I recognize that a Red Wave has occurred. Unfortunately, it happened, although it was won in a free and fair election. However, this does not support the claim that Democrats are a criminal party, as previously asserted. That assertion has no legitimate foundation; it is spiteful unfounded rhetoric.

I am genuinely concerned that we have become a nation that, for the first time in history, has elected a criminal as President—an immoral individual—who seems intent on leading our country in direct opposition to the principles upon which it was founded.

 

[JaySecrets]

Indeed, I recognize that a Red Wave has occurred. Unfortunately, it happened, although it was won in a free and fair election. However, this does not support the claim that Democrats are a criminal party, as previously asserted. That assertion has no legitimate foundation; it is spiteful unfounded rhetoric.

I am genuinely concerned that we have become a nation that, for the first time in history, has elected a criminal as President—an immoral individual—who seems intent on leading our country in direct opposition to the principles upon which it was founded.

Oh that happened when we (supposedly at least) elected Joe Biden.

 

[Dollar_Bill]

I supported Harris-Waltz. The election was not rigged. 2020 wasn't rigged either. 2016? There was some Russian interference and then the Cambridge Analytica matter on the R side, but rigged? No. The US election system is very solid.

"Rigging" is Trump's carnival barking to mess with your mind, and being a master marketer, he knows that if can get enough people esp his advocating news organizations talking about it, sooner or later the meme becomes fact. If he wins, it was legit. If he loses, storm the Capitol. He knows well how to manipulate the masses.

So, disappointing to me, but how it goes. In our system all of Congress is up for re-election in 2 years. So if madness ensues (aside from internal R wars), it takes very few district elections to flip Congress the other way. In that manner, there is a check and balance, and has happened many times before.

 

[dmallord]

Oh that happened when we (supposedly at least) elected Joe Biden.

Correct. Joe Biden won an election by a free and fair process, contrary to gaslighting individuals.

 

[JaySecrets]

Correct. Joe Biden won an election by a free and fair process, contrary to gaslighting individuals.

Yeah, everyone was gaslighted into voting for the guy you don't like. You alone have clear vision. Please bestow upon us your font of wisdom...

Y'all really are as arrogant as you are ignorant.

 

[dmallord]

Yeah, everyone was gaslighted into voting for the guy you don't like. You alone have clear vision. Please bestow upon us your font of wisdom...

Y'all really are as arrogant as you are ignorant.

'Font of wisdom?' Perhaps you mean 'fount of wisdom.' Was it a typo, an uneducated misuse, or a homophone slip?

Font: characters of a specific style for displaying text or numbers.
Fount: source of knowledge, inspiration, or creativity.

My dislike for Trump is too mild a phrase to convey my deep loathing for him as a felon, sex offender, and narcissist. It doesn't require extraordinary insight to see that he is not fit for the presidency—not even remotely. A simple question reveals this: would you feel comfortable leaving your daughter alone with Trump, considering his past actions, comments, and remarks about women? That doesn’t require wisdom, just common sense.

Imparting wisdom for your benefit reminds me of Robert A. Heinlein's saying, "You can't teach a pig to sing." To clarify, this means that it would be a waste of time and energy, ultimately leading to no meaningful impact on your understanding. Engaging in dialogue with those who support Trump is like trying to teach a pig to sing.

At eighty-seven years old, with limited time left, I'm not interested in teaching pigs to sing or sharing my wealth of wisdom just to be laughed at. It's frustrating to see the support for Trump despite his clear unfitness for the presidency.

Your arrogance is showing, madame. Please adjust your slip.

 

[AceDesSpades]

Wasn't expected by WHO?!! The mainstream "legacy" media who was lying and covering up all the way along? The Dem party that has been living in a delusion for years while they have been bleeding voters? Conservatives have been PREDICTING that Red Wave. And expected or not, IT HAPPENED! THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN! THE DEMS JUST DON'T WANT TO HEAR WHAT THEY SAID.

We are at the tail-end of a paradigm shift in the way we get information and make decisions and politics has been late to the game and journalism too ossified to see the little mammals biting at their ankles.

 

[AceDesSpades]

You might be old, but you still see what you want to see.

 

[dmallord]

You might be old, but you still see what you want to see.

I see a decline in civility. That definitely has a high degree of clarity. It is not subjective but an objective observation about loons ranting here.

 

[AceDesSpades]

Shit.

Decrying the loss of civility has been going on since, well, I can remember before Nixon and people who could not say Eisenhower without spitting...

FOREVER

(but it does happen – ask Italy, still living in the ruins {as do I})

 

[dmallord]

Shit.

Decrying the loss of civility has been going on since, well, I can remember before Nixon and people who could not say Eisenhower without spitting...

FOREVER

(but it does happen – ask Italy, still living in the ruins {as do I})

We decry the decline. Yet, we could show individual improvement. Responding to one individual without condescension would be a very fine start. Multiply that... and over time, it could lead to thoughtful discourse.

I'm kidding you, right?

Nixon couldn't outlive the 'used car salesman' baggage tag he wore. His lack of ethics and lies caught up with him. He did the honorable thing in resigning. Still, his family loved him even for his faults. [See, that was easy to say without condescension.]

Gerald Ford, bless him, pardoned him. Maybe not a good thing in the sense that justice was never served, but the nation moved on and was better for it. Ford's 'noble' act cost him in the end.

Eisenhower is a general of post-war significance in history. I recall his efforts to crisscross the nation with a new highway system: the Interstates. It was a valiant and economically prosperous effort. [See, that was easy to say without condescension.]

Commit one random act of kindness and feel its effects.

 

[AceDesSpades]

Well, I haven't put you on ignore yet. Kind enough?

 

[JaySecrets]

'Font of wisdom?' Perhaps you mean 'fount of wisdom.' Was it a typo, an uneducated misuse, or a homophone slip?

"When writing, font is going to be more proper for American English usage, while fount is more popular with British English authors. Since both are derived from the word fountain and mean essentially the same, you won’t be criticized if you prefer one over the other.".... Except maybe for the illiterate on Lit.

Font: characters of a specific style for displaying text or numbers.
Fount: source of knowledge, inspiration, or creativity.

Read a damn book older than 1995

My dislike for Trump is too mild a phrase to convey my deep loathing for him as a felon, sex offender, and narcissist. It doesn't require extraordinary insight to see that he is not fit for the presidency—not even remotely. A simple question reveals this: would you feel comfortable leaving your daughter alone with Trump, considering his past actions, comments, and remarks about women? That doesn’t require wisdom, just common sense.

Lets break this down shall we? Felon. Because the courts literally INVINTED a felony, that had never been a felony, for political reasons, not criminal. Funny how no Justice that wasn't a hard core lefty who hadn't literally run for office on the promise to attack Trump would even touch these cases... And should we talk about a "random pool" of many judges miraculously picking THAT judge? More than once? Sex offender? Nope. That was a civil trial where a liberal judge and liberal jury convicted on a case that, when it was a criminal trial, was laughed out of court. The SO label is the oldest move in the book by the Dems to smear their opposition. It never sticks, but by the time it is proven false the damage is done. A narcissist? The most overused word today. He's a bit of an ass, but not even close to a narcissist. His remarks about women? He was talking, more than a decade prior, on a TMZ bus, about what some women would ALLOW him to do as a celebrity. And he was correct. Rappers talk about the same thing ALL the time and I hear no condemnation from you about their language. Truth is the there are many women who will allow a man with money and power to grab them by the pussy and more. Because they are the definition of a ho. Oh, and Trump didn't instigate that conversation. Billy Bush did. Would I leave my daughter alone with him? Yes. Because one comment 20 years ago and a few baseless accusations with political motive don't make me call him an SO. Because I'm not a mindless drone.

Imparting wisdom for your benefit reminds me of Robert A. Heinlein's saying, "You can't teach a pig to sing." To clarify, this means that it would be a waste of time and energy, ultimately leading to no meaningful impact on your understanding. Engaging in dialogue with those who support Trump is like trying to teach a pig to sing.

At eighty-seven years old, with limited time left, I'm not interested in teaching pigs to sing or sharing my wealth of wisdom just to be laughed at. It's frustrating to see the support for Trump despite his clear unfitness for the presidency.

You missed the point. You are proving yourself to be an arrogant old fool. You may have some wisdom to impart, but on this front.... I leave you with your own words

Your arrogance is showing, madame. Please adjust your slip.

 

[dmallord]

"When writing, font is going to be more proper for American English usage, while fount is more popular with British English authors. Since both are derived from the word fountain and mean essentially the same, you won’t be criticized if you prefer one over the other.".... Except maybe for the illiterate on Lit.

Read a damn book older than 1995

Lets break this down shall we? Felon. Because the courts literally INVINTED a felony, that had never been a felony, for political reasons, not criminal. Funny how no Justice that wasn't a hard core lefty who hadn't literally run for office on the promise to attack Trump would even touch these cases... And should we talk about a "random pool" of many judges miraculously picking THAT judge? More than once? Sex offender? Nope. That was a civil trial where a liberal judge and liberal jury convicted on a case that, when it was a criminal trial, was laughed out of court. The SO label is the oldest move in the book by the Dems to smear their opposition. It never sticks, but by the time it is proven false the damage is done. A narcissist? The most overused word today. He's a bit of an ass, but not even close to a narcissist. His remarks about women? He was talking, more than a decade prior, on a TMZ bus, about what some women would ALLOW him to do as a celebrity. And he was correct. Rappers talk about the same thing ALL the time and I hear no condemnation from you about their language. Truth is the there are many women who will allow a man with money and power to grab them by the pussy and more. Because they are the definition of a ho. Oh, and Trump didn't instigate that conversation. Billy Bush did. Would I leave my daughter alone with him? Yes. Because one comment 20 years ago and a few baseless accusations with political motive don't make me call him an SO. Because I'm not a mindless drone.

You missed the point. You are proving yourself to be an arrogant old fool. You may have some wisdom to impart, but on this front.... I leave you with your own words

Jay, no one on either side of the pond says 'font of wisdom'... Please note that and adjust your use accordingly. It's okay to own a slip in language. We all make them. It's a 'fount of wisdom' for everyone using the expression.

Your declaration of reading an older book than 1995 escapes me. I don't follow you at all.

Jay, I hear the deep frustration in your reply. Your points are thoughtful and deserve a careful response, especially given the strong opinions around such polarizing topics. I’m not out to antagonize you, but let’s break this down with some context and balanced analysis.

First, it’s important to recognize that Donald Trump’s legal and reputational challenges didn’t start with his entry into politics. His history in New York, long before he announced any presidential ambitions, was already marked by numerous legal disputes and public controversies. In the 1970s, for instance, Trump faced significant legal scrutiny over allegations of housing discrimination brought by the Department of Justice. These accusations claimed that Trump’s real estate company refused to rent to Black tenants, a case that was settled with an agreement, though Trump maintained no wrongdoing.

Beyond that, Trump was no stranger to civil litigation as a businessman. He was involved in high-profile lawsuits concerning contract disputes, alleged fraud, and questionable business practices. These were not mere political maneuvers but part of a pattern observed by legal analysts over decades. By the time Trump entered the political scene, he already carried a history that could easily be scrutinized and leveraged in a contentious public forum.

A notable example of his more recent legal entanglements includes the civil case brought by E. Jean Carroll. Carroll accused Trump of sexual assault and defamation, leading to a high-profile trial. While the criminal case was dropped due to the statute of limitations, the civil trial proceeded, resulting in Trump being found liable for defamation and battery. Despite the court's findings, Trump failed to adhere to subsequent court orders instructing him to cease defamatory statements about Carroll, an action that deepened the perception of his disregard for legal boundaries and judicial processes. His defamation rose from five million to almost eighty-four million as a result. He couldn’t keep his mouth shut.

This instance illustrates a pattern: whether in past real estate dealings or modern-day legal battles, Trump's confrontational approach often puts him at odds with legal norms and court directives. This development isn't born purely out of his political life but an extension of his established track record in business and personal conduct.

While it’s fair to recognize the political dimension that accompanies cases involving high-profile figures, dismissing all legal challenges as politically motivated overlooks the substantial legal basis behind some of these claims. The E. Jean Carroll case exemplifies how these disputes are not just smear campaigns but are often rooted in credible accusations that hold up under judicial review.

Moreover, terms like “narcissist” are indeed overused, often thrown around casually without proper context. Yet, clinical definitions and how they might apply to leaders are legitimate areas for psychologists and political analysts to explore. Public figures like Trump draw significant attention not just because of media portrayal but also because of a history marked by behavior that invites deeper scrutiny. His niece is a psychologist. She had branded him a narcissist and his sister, a former Judge, pointed out he was a consummate pathological liar. That's from his own family members. So, there is that perspective as well.

Let’s face it: Trump brought much of his tribulations upon himself through his misdeeds. No matter how you spin it, politics apart, Trump is not a good person. You have said he is an ass. On that, we can agree. He is also liable for his actions, and a jury of his peers have agreed upon that in his pre-political history as well as during his volatile rise to be the president-elect.

 

[JaySecrets]

Jay, no one on either side of the pond says 'font of wisdom'... Please note that and adjust your use accordingly. It's okay to own a slip in language. We all make them. It's a 'fount of wisdom' for everyone using the expression.

Your declaration of reading an older book than 1995 escapes me. I don't follow you at all.

My quote was from Grammarly. I am a poet, a writer, a lyricist, a song writer, and was reading on a college level since Jr. High. You don't want to get into the literacy argument with me. You WILL lose. The definition of "font" you quote is purely a modern, computer era redefining of the word. My usage was common usage until the late 1900's. It still is common usage among the literate. You REALLY don't want to play this game. You WILL show your ass.

Jay, I hear the deep frustration in your reply. Your points are thoughtful and deserve a careful response, especially given the strong opinions around such polarizing topics. I’m not out to antagonize you, but let’s break this down with some context and balanced analysis.

First, it’s important to recognize that Donald Trump’s legal and reputational challenges didn’t start with his entry into politics. His history in New York, long before he announced any presidential ambitions, was already marked by numerous legal disputes and public controversies. In the 1970s, for instance, Trump faced significant legal scrutiny over allegations of housing discrimination brought by the Department of Justice. These accusations claimed that Trump’s real estate company refused to rent to Black tenants, a case that was settled with an agreement, though Trump maintained no wrongdoing.

Beyond that, Trump was no stranger to civil litigation as a businessman. He was involved in high-profile lawsuits concerning contract disputes, alleged fraud, and questionable business practices. These were not mere political maneuvers but part of a pattern observed by legal analysts over decades. By the time Trump entered the political scene, he already carried a history that could easily be scrutinized and leveraged in a contentious public forum.

SO legal battels where Trump was never convicted, settled in a way any smart businessman would in order to avoid legal entanglements for a lucrative business where people in today's world tend to press petty lawsuits in order to cash in. And the point here is.... Nothing. Racism is one of the easiest accusations to toss out specifically BECAUSE it needs so little to substantiate. The conviction is in the accusation. And it is usually bullshit.

A notable example of his more recent legal entanglements includes the civil case brought by E. Jean Carroll. Carroll accused Trump of sexual assault and defamation, leading to a high-profile trial. While the criminal case was dropped due to the statute of limitations, the civil trial proceeded, resulting in Trump being found liable for defamation and battery. Despite the court's findings, Trump failed to adhere to subsequent court orders instructing him to cease defamatory statements about Carroll, an action that deepened the perception of his disregard for legal boundaries and judicial processes. His defamation rose from five million to almost eighty-four million as a result. He couldn’t keep his mouth shut.

E. Jean Carroll is an openly leftist shill with a political axe to grind. Her accusations were laughable, unsubstantiated, and fell apart under any scrutiny. They were laughed out of actual court. The civil suit was because he had the gall to actually publicly defend himself against an accuser... who was found to be lying. A right ANY AMERICAN HAS. He was literally tried by a leftist judge and jury for exercising his constitutional rights. THat shoud scare the shit out of every American.

This instance illustrates a pattern: whether in past real estate dealings or modern-day legal battles, Trump's confrontational approach often puts him at odds with legal norms and court directives. This development isn't born purely out of his political life but an extension of his established track record in business and personal conduct.

While it’s fair to recognize the political dimension that accompanies cases involving high-profile figures, dismissing all legal challenges as politically motivated overlooks the substantial legal basis behind some of these claims. The E. Jean Carroll case exemplifies how these disputes are not just smear campaigns but are often rooted in credible accusations that hold up under judicial review.

There has yet to be any balanced judicial review by the higher courts or the Supreme Court. Funny thing, there are prominent DEMOCRAT lawyers and legal experts that call the cases brought against Trump, every one of them, unprecedented, unconstitutional, and dangerous precedent for America on any front

Moreover, terms like “narcissist” are indeed overused, often thrown around casually without proper context. Yet, clinical definitions and how they might apply to leaders are legitimate areas for psychologists and political analysts to explore. Public figures like Trump draw significant attention not just because of media portrayal but also because of a history marked by behavior that invites deeper scrutiny. His niece is a psychologist. She had branded him a narcissist and his sister, a former Judge, pointed out he was a consummate pathological liar. That's from his own family members. So, there is that perspective as well.

A family member who is a rabid leftist, hard left Dem. How many conservatives get the same treatment by their own family today? (Note, we as conservatives don't do this to our Democrat or lefty friends and family. It generally cuts one way.)

Let’s face it: Trump brought much of his tribulations upon himself through his misdeeds. No matter how you spin it, politics apart, Trump is not a good person. You have said he is an ass. On that, we can agree. He is also liable for his actions, and a jury of his peers have agreed upon that in his pre-political history as well as during his volatile rise to be the president-elect.

I said he can BE an ass... As most successful businessmen can be. Being something of an asshole at times can be part of the job. I don't care that deeply about such a personality trait. I want to see if he is an effective leader. Thus far, judging from his first term, he is IN SPADES!!! Your blind asses on the left are just too arrogant and willingly ignorant to see it. THAT'S WHY YOU GOT KICKED OUT BY AMERICA!!!

 

[Politruk]

Oh that happened when we (supposedly at least) elected Joe Biden.

Biden is an innocuous, centrist DLC DINO, just like Clinton, Obama and Harris.

 

[HisArpy]

"When writing, font is going to be more proper for American English usage, while fount is more popular with British English authors. Since both are derived from the word fountain and mean essentially the same, you won’t be criticized if you prefer one over the other.".... Except maybe for the illiterate on Lit.

Looks like someone hasn't ever submitted a story to Loving Wives...

 

[Politruk]

I want to see if he is an effective leader. Thus far, judging from his first term, he is IN SPADES!!! Your blind asses on the left are just too arrogant and willingly ignorant to see it. THAT'S WHY YOU GOT KICKED OUT BY AMERICA!!!

Have you already forgotten the unrelenting criminality, incompetence and kakistocracy of Trump's first term?!

 

[JaySecrets]

Biden is an innocuous, centrist DLC DINO, just like Clinton, Obama and Harris.

That is a position ONLY Marxists and Communists hold. Thank you for showing why you have been rejected by America.

 

[dmallord]

My quote was from Grammarly. I am a poet, a writer, a lyricist, a song writer, and was reading on a college level since Jr. High. You don't want to get into the literacy argument with me. You WILL lose. The definition of "font" you quote is purely a modern, computer era redefining of the word. My usage was common usage until the late 1900's. It still is common usage among the literate. You REALLY don't want to play this game. You WILL show your ass.

I'm not a gamer.

Irony. My source was also Grammarly Pro when I first wrote my remarks.

I've used 'a fount of knowledge' as an expression for probably seven decades. AI source says, "Both "fount of knowledge" and "font of knowledge" are correct, but "fount" is more traditional and is considered standard in British dictionaries. So your claim that 'font' is an older usage is actually reversed: 'fount' is the older term. The one I use. However, the Oxford English Corpus suggests that "font of knowledge" is now more common.

I checked on Webster a few moments ago and see that its second definition fits your use as well. I accept your use. [See, I can accept it, given the added information.]

Given your admirable traits and artistic inclinations, I'm sure your education was very beneficial. I didn't challenge your education, nor felt a need to elaborate on mine as a means of attempting to impress you. I've no need to impress anyone. It is not becoming of anyone to do so.

However, you haven't profited from what could have been gained in civility that often accompanies a proper education for the literate, e.g. insulting remarks that betray your sense of being a superior ass were missed out on.

SO legal battels where Trump was never convicted, settled in a way any smart businessman would in order to avoid legal entanglements for a lucrative business where people in today's world tend to press petty lawsuits in order to cash in. And the point here is.... Nothing. Racism is one of the easiest accusations to toss out specifically BECAUSE it needs so little to substantiate. The conviction is in the accusation. And it is usually bullshit.

If you had read the case, you would have seen that it was a clear racial discrimination issue. A black man applied for a rental property, and the supervisor turned him down, saying it was already rented. A white woman applied for the same property, and she was approved. In court, the supervisor testified that he had asked Trump about the application and had been told to bury it. It's a cut-and-dry issue there. This wasn't the only case involved. No bullshit other than Trump's history of discrimination. Yes, Trump was smart to take a plea deal and admit to fixing future concerns by promising to change his practices and take court assignments on how to properly apply the law in such situations. Saved his ass in future legal fees if you think of it in those terms-business smarts but certainly not that he didn't break the law.

E. Jean Carroll is an openly leftist shill with a political axe to grind. Her accusations were laughable, unsubstantiated, and fell apart under any scrutiny. They were laughed out of actual court. The civil suit was because he had the gall to actually publicly defend himself against an accuser... who was found to be lying. A right ANY AMERICAN HAS. He was literally tried by a leftist judge and jury for exercising his constitutional rights. THat shoud scare the shit out of every American.

He was convicted and continues to violate court orders to stop the defamation. Any other citizen violating such an order would have been in jail. You miss the point entirely. He defamed her again and again after orders not to. That isn't freedom of speech. It put her life at risk with numerous death threats and he didn't give a damn about it.

There has yet to be any balanced judicial review by the higher courts or the Supreme Court. Funny thing, there are prominent DEMOCRAT lawyers and legal experts that call the cases brought against Trump, every one of them, unprecedented, unconstitutional, and dangerous precedent for America on any front

He tried to circumvent the lower courts of appeals. Funny that hasn't worked out for him trying to jump to the SC justices for a decision on a state court of appeals case-not federal.

A family member who is a rabid leftist, hard left Dem. How many conservatives get the same treatment by their own family today? (Note, we as conservatives don't do this to our Democrat or lefty friends and family. It generally cuts one way.)

His sister was a Federal Judge, and her words were against him. His niece, a psychologist well versed in his history, gave the world insight into him. Call them rabid if you will, but Trump must then fit within that definition as he is family.

I said he can BE an ass... As most successful businessmen can be. Being something of an asshole at times can be part of the job. I don't care that deeply about such a personality trait. I want to see if he is an effective leader. Thus far, judging from his first term, he is IN SPADES!!! Your blind asses on the left are just too arrogant and willingly ignorant to see it. THAT'S WHY YOU GOT KICKED OUT BY AMERICA!!!

On this last point, we are somewhat in disagreement. Yes, he is an ass. And no, he is and will not be an effective leader. He has none of those positive characteristics going for him. Assholes seldom do. That point is not 'willing ignorance.' It is life experience over decades of character judgments unrelated to political matters.

 

[JaySecrets]

Everything you just said was pure tripe. The bulk of America knows it. They rejected your ilk for a reason. You lost DEMOCRAT votes to Trump because they couldn't stomach your toxic insanity any longer. The nation has spoken. Maybe pay attention to what they are screaming at you instead of screaming your delusions and lies. Then again your side never learns.