: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.

It seems to me you both make valid points. — 180 Proof

My post wasn't intended as real criticism. I was just giving you crap.

:up:

Back in 2015 and 2016, a number of posters on Red State and sites of the Bannon variety boasted of using their participation on "liberal" sites to hone their rhetoric in other places. That chatter shut down when they realized anybody could fake whatever screen being thrown up to participate in the discussion. Ancient history, almost.

TPF could be a resource for that sort of thing. Questioning what is 'politization' may impoverish the efforts.

Public and political pressure, maybe. — NOS4A2

Maybe? You're gonna need a lot more than that. Please provide evidence that in January 2021 Raffensperger was being pressured to NOT overturn the GA election results. Who was doing this pressuring?

In fact, Raffensperger has stated repeatedly that it was Trump who was pressuring him.

[edit]
Raffensperger has challenged Trump to a debate about the results of the election

Here are the moments I could find that Trump “pressured” Raffensperger to do anything.

Here he is pressuring Germany to say it if he finds it [criminal activity, big problem, mistakes]:

Trump: 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. And flipping the state is a great testament to our country because, you know, this is -- it’s a testament that they can admit to a mistake or whatever you want to call it. If it was a mistake, I don’t know. A lot of people think it wasn’t a mistake. It was much more criminal than that. But it’s a big problem in Georgia, and it’s not a problem that’s going away. I mean, you know, it’s not a problem that’s going away...

Germany: This is Ryan. We’re looking into every one of those things that you mentioned.

Trump: Good. But if you find it, you’ve got to say it, Ryan...

Here he is pressuring Germany to check on the ballots:

Trump: Well, you better check on the ballots because they are shredding ballots, Ryan. I’m just telling you, Ryan. They’re shredding ballots. And you should look at that very carefully. Because that’s so illegal. You know, you may not even believe it because it’s so bad. But they’re shredding ballots because they think we’re going to eventually get there ...

Here he is pressuring Raffensperger to go back and look at signatures:

But you have to go back to check from past years with respect to signatures. And if you check with Fulton County, you’ll have hundreds of thousands because they dumped ballots into Fulton County and the other county next to it.

Here is Trump pressuring Raffesnperger to say he is going reexamine the election.

And every single ballot went to Biden, and you didn’t know that, but now you know it. So tell me, Brad, what are we going to do? We won the election, and it’s not fair to take it away from us like this. And it’s going to be very costly in many ways. And I think you have to say that you’re going to reexamine it, and you can reexamine it, but reexamine it with people that want to find answers, not people that don’t want to find answers. For instance, I’m hearing Ryan that he’s probably, I’m sure a great lawyer and everything, but he’s making statements about those ballots that he doesn’t know. But he’s making them with such -- he did make them with surety. But now I think he’s less sure because the answer is, they all went to Biden, and that alone wins us the election by a lot. You know, so.

Here he is pressuring Raffesnperger to meet with Ryan.

I would like you ... for the attorneys ... I’d like you to perhaps meet with Ryan, ideally tomorrow, because I think we should come to a resolution of this before the election. Otherwise you’re going to have people just not voting. They don’t want to vote. They hate the state, they hate the governor, and they hate the secretary of state. I will tell you that right now. The only people that like you are people that will never vote for you. You know that, Brad, right? They like you, you know, they like you. They can’t believe what they found. They want more people like you. So, look, can you get together tomorrow? And, Brad, we just want the truth. It’s simple.

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/nation-world/full-text-transcript-of-president-trump-call-with-georgia-sec-of-state/507-776ec762-22fe-438f-948c-96a9d52257eb

I don’t see anything in here about pressuring Raffensperger to “overturn the GA election results”. Given this, perhaps you can provide evidence that Trump was pressuring the Secretary of State to “overturn the GA election results”. Also, if you wouldn’t mind sharing your definition of threat, since you’re so sure Trump threatened him, it would be helpful since am still unable to see it.

Paine believed Biden’s lie that Trump never denounced white supremacists and furthered that lie up until just recently. Instead of indignation of those who duped him, he now spreads the conspiracy theory that the person who informed him of the truth is part of a scheme to infiltrate anti-Trump echo-chambers. The rot must begin right at the top.

Paine believed Biden’s lie that Trump never denounced white supremacists and furthered that lie up until just recently. Instead of indignation of those who duped him, he now spreads the conspiracy theory that the person who informed him of the truth is part of a scheme to infiltrate anti-Trump echo-chambers. The rot must begin right at the top. — NOS4A2

Who is Paine?