Trump sues to block U.S. Congress subpoena for his financial records

[Becker]

57 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Deflection noted. 

 

All the right wants is voter ID, just like every other country in the world, to ensure the sanctity of the vote is upheld. Get back to me when the left wants actual ethical standards upheld. 

Says the faithful Trump supporter

[toenail]

I disagree with Bernie Sanders on allowing felons to vote.  I see nothing wrong with Kamala Harris being open minded about the subject.
 
Most of all, I disagree with Mitch McConnell refusing to allow debate on a bill to expand voting, limit gerrymandering, and strengthen ethics.  Funny that Trump supporters are so opposed to these things they don't want them discussed.

Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

Deflection noted. 

 

All the right wants is voter ID, just like every other country in the world, to ensure the sanctity of the vote is upheld. Get back to me when the left wants actual ethical standards upheld. 

Deflection noted.

 

Get back to me when you have credible evidence that voter fraud is so serious it requires more government intrusion in people's lives and another ID on top of all those most of us have.

 

I noted that the first act of the new House of Representatives with a Democratic majority was to pass a bill that included expanded voting, restricted political gerrymandering, and increased ethical standards for elected officials.  I also pointed out that the House Democrats were performing their constitution duty of oversight.  My post was on-topic.  Your post is the deflection.  Nice try.

[Thainesss]

10 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Get back to me when you have credible evidence that voter fraud is so serious it requires more government intrusion in people's lives and another ID on top of all those most of us have.

 

So the left only seems to give a crap about 'government intrusion into peoples lives' when it comes to voter fraud, but apparently don't give a crap about it an any other instance when it benefits them. How convenient. 

 

When the left does everything in their power to refuse to investigate and report voter fraud, what do they have to hide? The left is SO concerned about foreign meddling yet absolutely REFUSE to check and see if our vote at home is tight. How convenient. 

 

And nobody said you need another ID. State DL/ID with identity checks is more than enough. 

 

[heybruce]

12 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

So the left only seems to give a crap about 'government intrusion into peoples lives' when it comes to voter fraud, but apparently don't give a crap about it an any other instance when it benefits them. How convenient. 

 

When the left does everything in their power to refuse to investigate and report voter fraud, what do they have to hide? The left is SO concerned about foreign meddling yet absolutely REFUSE to check and see if our vote at home is tight. How convenient. 

 

And nobody said you need another ID. State DL/ID with identity checks is more than enough. 

 

So Trump, holding the most powerful position in the world, a position in which he could greatly enrich himself and endanger the country, should not be vetted or investigated in any way without hard evidence, but...

 

More government intrusion and  bureaucracy is warranted to prevent voter fraud, even though there is no evidence of significant voter fraud?  In fact, there is scant evidence of anything but trivial voter fraud.

 

Just call it voter suppression, alright?  Everyone knows that's what it is.

 

BTW:  I have to show an ID to vote in my state.  I was almost denied the ID because of a local government screw-up that resulted in the street I live on sometimes being called a Drive and sometimes an Avenue.  This while I was applying for a drivers license five miles from the hospital I was born in long ago.

 

In my state, and others, voter suppression is done using much more that ID laws.  It involves inadequate voting locations, changing deadlines, and incompetent volunteers manning polling stations.

[Thainesss]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

More government intrusion and  bureaucracy is warranted to prevent voter fraud, even though there is no evidence of significant voter fraud?  In fact, there is scant evidence of anything but trivial voter fraud.

 

Just so were clear here, when you say there is no evidence of voter fraud, what you actually mean is that the Democrats refuse to partake in any investigation into it, so we actually don't know and saying there is no evidence of it is lying by omission. 

 

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Just call it voter suppression, alright?  Everyone knows that's what it is.

 

???? 

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Just so were clear here, when you say there is no evidence of voter fraud, what you actually mean is that the Democrats refuse to partake in any investigation into it, so we actually don't know and saying there is no evidence of it is lying by omission. 

 

 

???? 

No, when I say there is no evidence of voter fraud, I mean there is no evidence of voter fraud.

 

However, if you think an investigation based on paranoid conspiracy theories is warranted, how's this:  A group of people with a sense of entitlement who could easily get away with voter fraud are affluent retirees who have both summer and winter homes.  They could easily register to vote in both places and vote twice.

 

Do I have evidence this is happening?  No.  Is this a possibility?  Yes.  Is this a group that usually votes conservative?  Probably.

 

So what do you think?  Should we investigation this kind of voter fraud, even though there is no evidence?  You can't say it definitely isn't happening, can you?

[Thainesss]

14 minutes ago, heybruce said:

No, when I say there is no evidence of voter fraud, I mean there is no evidence of voter fraud.

That is the fakest of fake news. Not only is there ample evidence of voter fraud, the entire collective left refused to participate in a 2017 voter fraud commission. Its a joke and an embarrassment. 

 

19 minutes ago, heybruce said:

So what do you think?  Should we investigation this kind of voter fraud, even though there is no evidence?  You can't say it definitely isn't happening, can you?

 

I think this is quintessential projection. By putting up a hypothetical constructed to be a negative for the republican party, you admit that the reason you fight this is because you KNOW its beneficial to the Democrat party. Its not about ethics, its about votes, plain and simple, and its trash. You don't care about the sanctity of the vote or civil rights or ethics, just votes, and where they come from be damned. 

And no, I would not care, because I actually care about democracy and a level playing field. If the vote is sound and the right loses, then they lost fair & square. Can you say this about todays left? No, and even attempting to justify it would be laughable. 

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

That is the fakest of fake news. Not only is there ample evidence of voter fraud, the entire collective left refused to participate in a 2017 voter fraud commission. Its a joke and an embarrassment. 

 

 

I think this is quintessential projection. By putting up a hypothetical constructed to be a negative for the republican party, you admit that the reason you fight this is because you KNOW its beneficial to the Democrat party. Its not about ethics, its about votes, plain and simple, and its trash. You don't care about the sanctity of the vote or civil rights or ethics, just votes, and where they come from be damned. 

And no, I would not care, because I actually care about democracy and a level playing field. If the vote is sound and the right loses, then they lost fair & square. Can you say this about todays left? No, and even attempting to justify it would be laughable. 

Ample evidence of fraud?  Then you will have no trouble providing evidence of this fraud.  I eagerly await this evidence.

 

I'm glad you don't object to the idea of investigating affluent people with two or more addresses using them to vote more than once.  I think that is a more likely source of voter fraud than non-citizens voting.

[Thainesss]

Just now, heybruce said:

Ample evidence of fraud?  Then you will have no trouble providing evidence of this fraud.  I eagerly await this evidence.

 

Quote

After a yearlong voter-fraud probe, Texas discovered that, lo and behold, 95,000 people identified as noncitizens had voter registrations. What's more, 58,000 of them voted in one or more Texas elections.

 

Quote

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted found 821 noncitizens registered to vote in that state, of whom 126 had voted in 2016 or earlier elections. 

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/voter-fraud-texas-evidence-non-citizens-voting/

 

I could provide tons of links and evidence but you will never care or yield, you know it and I know it. 

 

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I'm glad you don't object to the idea of investigating affluent people with two or more addresses using them to vote more than once.  I think that is a more likely source of voter fraud than non-citizens voting.

 

Great. If you think voter fraud is a potential negative for the Republican party (LOL) then we've got your support and im sure you wont have a problem with it. 

[heybruce]

16 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

 

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/voter-fraud-texas-evidence-non-citizens-voting/

 

I could provide tons of links and evidence but you will never care or yield, you know it and I know it. 

 

 

Great. If you think voter fraud is a potential negative for the Republican party (LOL) then we've got your support and im sure you wont have a problem with it. 

58,000 out of 15 million registered voters in Texas represents less than 0.4% of the voters.  Without details of these 58,000 we have no way of knowing if these were "noncitizens" of Texas or of the US, or if they were legally entitled to vote when they voted, or if these vague claims fall apart upon closer scrutiny (they often do).  Most of these claims of massive (0.4%) voter fraud fall apart when these details are examined.

 

But perhaps I underestimate the conservative, Republican state government in Texas.  I'm sure you can provide details of the follow-up of these scandalous non-citizen voters and their legal prosecution.  Go for it.

 

126 suspect Ohio voters in a state with 9 million people of voting age is even more trivial.

 

" Yet the day after Trump shut down the highly criticized panel last week amid an array of lawsuits, including one filed by a member of the commission itself, court filings show the panel didn't uncover any evidence of fraudulent voting during its 11 months in operation. "   https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2018-01-10/trump-commision-on-election-integrity-found-no-evidence-of-voter-fraud

[Thainesss]

22 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I'm sure you can provide details of the follow-up of these scandalous non-citizen voters and their legal prosecution.  Go for it.

 

As suspected, when being shown evidence you shift the goalposts and deflect. 

 

Elections have been won by votes in the simple hundreds and low thousands recently, and Trump himself only really won by a few ten thousand votes across 3 states, so the premise that there needs to be 'widespread' voter fraud to have an impact is a fallacy, and the fact the left doesn't care is an injustice to the Republic and is a great example of how trash they really are. Especially how absolutely outraged they pretend to be about 'foreign meddling' ???? 

 

27 minutes ago, heybruce said:

court filings show the panel didn't uncover any evidence of fraudulent voting during its 11 months in operation

 

So the panel was blocked by lawsuit after lawsuit from the left, and the conclusion that there wasn't any evidence (after being fought tooth and nail) is somehow vindication for you? 

 

Hell of a take. 

[candide]

54 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

 

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/voter-fraud-texas-evidence-non-citizens-voting/

 

I could provide tons of links and evidence but you will never care or yield, you know it and I know it. 

 

 

Great. If you think voter fraud is a potential negative for the Republican party (LOL) then we've got your support and im sure you wont have a problem with it. 

Investors.com, lol.

Another fake news, the 58,000 figure is far from being confirmed as being all non-citizen. Moreover, the announcement referenced voting records spanning a 22-year period (1996 to 2018).

httpshttps://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/jan/28/donald-trump/trump-wrongly-tweets-58000-noncitizens-voted-texas/://www.texastribune.org/2019/01/25/texas-flags-tens-thousands-voters-citizenship-check/

 

[hugocnx]

21 hours ago, Thakkar said:

How is “the Left” taking it (what “it” are you referring to, btw—your explanation does not explain?) “too far?”

 

It was a Republican FBI Director, Comey, who began the initial investigation, it was a Republican AG (Sessions) who voluntarily recused himself after advice from department lawyers (and, presumably his own personal lawyers), and it was the Trump-appointed Republican Deputy AG that appointed the Special council, who himself *also* happens to be a lifelong Republican. 

 

Mueller, a Republican (not that it should matter, as he has not spoken publicly and has just allowed his work products to speak for him), in his report says he found insufficient (not zero) evidence of—to use the common term—Collusion, and certainly no evidence to rule it out categorically. He also laid out systematically in his report instances of attempted, though ultimately failed, obstruction actions by Trump and stated that since department policy prohibits him from charging a sitting president, he chose to refrain from expressing a conclusion from the evidence as that breaches basic rules of fairness. (That is, if policy prevents you from charging someone, thus preventing that person from defending themselves in court, it would be unfair to give a conclusion that says “yes, we have enough evidence to charge him”)

 

He laid out the evidence and left it to Congress to make a judgement on the strength of the evidence. And, even to a layman, the evidence is pretty strong. Certainly strong enough to take to court—something the report alluded to in saying “...while the OLC [Office of Legal Council] opinion concludes that a sitting president may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during a president’s term is permissible. The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.” —an obvious statement that need not have been made, but, tellingly, was made nonetheless.

 

Any Congress, Republican or Democrat, would be derelict in it’s duty, if, on the evidence of this damning report, they did not conduct followup proceedings as part of their oversight duties.

Where was I mentioning Mueller, Comey or Sessions? As republicans I would say they'd try at least to give Potus the benefit of the doubt. But no, people mentioned above have all butter on their heads. I might assume they used at least good butter. 

[Thakkar]

On the issue of voter fraud:

Here are nine investigations on voter fraud that found virtually nothing

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/25/here-are-nine-major-investigations-on-voter-fraud-that-found-virtually-nothing/?utm_term=.00cf80d5d899

 

Don’t dismiss it just because it’s the”Bezoz fake Washinton Post” —follow the links to the source materials. One of the investigations was a five year effort by the George W Bush administration that turned up almost no evidence of voter fraud.

 

Words sometimes mean different things to different people. It would help if we had a Republican to English dictionary. I happen to have one. It says that when Republicans say “voter fraud” they mean “brown people voting”

 

Brown people voting is of course a travesty. But only if one is a White Nationalist.

[Thainesss]

1 minute ago, Thakkar said:

It says that when Republicans say “voter fraud” they mean “brown people voting”

 

????

[hugocnx]

9 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

On the issue of voter fraud:

Here are nine investigations on voter fraud that found virtually nothing

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/25/here-are-nine-major-investigations-on-voter-fraud-that-found-virtually-nothing/?utm_term=.00cf80d5d899

 

Don’t dismiss it just because it’s the”Bezoz fake Washinton Post” —follow the links to the source materials. One of the investigations was a five year effort by the George W Bush administration that turned up almost no evidence of voter fraud.

 

Words sometimes mean different things to different people. It would help if we had a Republican to English dictionary. I happen to have one. It says that when Republicans say “voter fraud” they mean “brown people voting”

 

Brown people voting is of course a travesty. But only if one is a White Nationalist.

Bullocks

[Thakkar]

13 minutes ago, hugocnx said:

Where was I mentioning Mueller, Comey or Sessions? As republicans I would say they'd try at least to give Potus the benefit of the doubt. But no, people mentioned above have all butter on their heads. I might assume they used at least good butter. 

I don’t know what you’re on about. I was responding to someone who made the baseless claim that “the left” had taken it “too far”

and pointed out that the investigation of Trump and his campaign and Russian election meddling was initiated by a republican, sustained by another and completed by a third. 

[Thakkar]

5 minutes ago, hugocnx said:

Bullocks

I am in awe of your speed reading skills and your intellect. 

[Thainesss]

22 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

I am in awe of your speed reading skills and your intellect. 

 

You know, when you start spouting off about honest people having genuine concerns about the vote, and equate them to wanting to stop "brown people" from voting and them being "white nationalists", when alot of the people here have "brown" wives, and "brown" children... Its highly insulting, and not even remotely funny or cute. 

[hugocnx]

26 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

I am in awe of your speed reading skills and your intellect. 

Your post wasn't that hard to read 5555

If you mean The Mueller Report, why don't you be clear about that.

Have this report read all along since it was published to 'the people'. Agreed, time taking and also pretty boring.

[hugocnx]

33 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

I don’t know what you’re on about. I was responding to someone who made the baseless claim that “the left” had taken it “too far”

and pointed out that the investigation of Trump and his campaign and Russian election meddling was initiated by a republican, sustained by another and completed by a third. 

Yes, you pointed out something about the investigation. Trying to divert the meaning of my post Mr. Spin Doctor?

[hugocnx]

13 hours ago, heybruce said:

Your point being?

 

The Democrats are trying to get more people to vote, to set higher ethical standards for those in office, and to reduce partisan gerrymandering.  The Republicans oppose them on this.

 

Mitch McConnell calls the attempt to make elections more democratic a "power grab".  It is, in the sense that it is an attempt to transfer power from the party of voter suppression to the voters.

>>to set higher ethical standards<< Pardon me

[hugocnx]

10 hours ago, heybruce said:

I disagree with Bernie Sanders on allowing felons to vote.  I see nothing wrong with Kamala Harris being open minded about the subject.

 

Most of all, I disagree with Mitch McConnell refusing to allow debate on a bill to expand voting, limit gerrymandering, and strengthen ethics.  Funny that Trump supporters are so opposed to these things they don't want them discussed.

The left is opposed to critical climate change thinkers and absolutely refuse any debate. Pot and the cattle?

Of course not, rule #1: we the left are always right and rule #2: in case we are not right rule #1 comes in automatically.

So please, what is so funny again about Trump supporters, besides the fact that the left (U2?) rather sees them dissipate so they don't need #2 anymore?

 

[Thakkar]

1 hour ago, Thainesss said:

 

You know, when you start spouting off about honest people having genuine concerns about the vote, and equate them to wanting to stop "brown people" from voting and them being "white nationalists", when alot of the people here have "brown" wives, and "brown" children... Its highly insulting, and not even remotely funny or cute. 

Is this your version of “I have black friends?”

[Thakkar]

56 minutes ago, hugocnx said:

Yes, you pointed out something about the investigation. Trying to divert the meaning of my post Mr. Spin Doctor?

 

Is that not the topic—the investigation of Trump?

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

58,000 out of 15 million registered voters in Texas represents less than 0.4% of the voters.  Without details of these 58,000 we have no way of knowing if these were "noncitizens" of Texas or of the US, or if they were legally entitled to vote when they voted, or if these vague claims fall apart upon closer scrutiny (they often do).  Most of these claims of massive (0.4%) voter fraud fall apart when these details are examined.

 

But perhaps I underestimate the conservative, Republican state government in Texas.  I'm sure you can provide details of the follow-up of these scandalous non-citizen voters and their legal prosecution.  Go for it.

 

126 suspect Ohio voters in a state with 9 million people of voting age is even more trivial.

 

" Yet the day after Trump shut down the highly criticized panel last week amid an array of lawsuits, including one filed by a member of the commission itself, court filings show the panel didn't uncover any evidence of fraudulent voting during its 11 months in operation. "   https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2018-01-10/trump-commision-on-election-integrity-found-no-evidence-of-voter-fraud

 

8 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

As suspected, when being shown evidence you shift the goalposts and deflect. 

 

Elections have been won by votes in the simple hundreds and low thousands recently, and Trump himself only really won by a few ten thousand votes across 3 states, so the premise that there needs to be 'widespread' voter fraud to have an impact is a fallacy, and the fact the left doesn't care is an injustice to the Republic and is a great example of how trash they really are. Especially how absolutely outraged they pretend to be about 'foreign meddling' ???? 

 

 

So the panel was blocked by lawsuit after lawsuit from the left, and the conclusion that there wasn't any evidence (after being fought tooth and nail) is somehow vindication for you? 

 

Hell of a take. 

As Candide pointed out, your figure of 58,000 is over 22 years, so the 0.4% of registered voters is now reduced to less than 0.04%.  Your report also does not provide details of the Texas study.  All of these accusations of widespread voter fraud fall apart on closer scrutiny.  Since you can provide no evidence that the Republican state government of Texas took any action following its own study, it is reasonable to assume that is what happened here.  Prove me wrong on this.

 

After reading further into your source I found the usual BS about non-citizens being registered to vote in some states.  This is routine; when people move from one state to another they rarely de-register to vote in the state they left.  It does not mean there is voter fraud.  Including this standard BS destroys the credibility of your source.

 

Trump's voter fraud panel made illegal requests and used the ensuing lawsuits to justify disbanding without finding anything of substance.  One of the lawsuits came from a member of the panel.  However it had plenty of access to data and still found nothing.

 

I'm amused by your statement:

 

"Elections have been won by votes in the simple hundreds and low thousands recently, and Trump himself only really won by a few ten thousand votes across 3 states, so the premise that there needs to be 'widespread' voter fraud to have an impact is a fallacy"

 

Whenever I make a statement like this but use "Russian interference" instead of "voter fraud" the Trumpies go berserk with outrage.

 

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, hugocnx said:

The left is opposed to critical climate change thinkers and absolutely refuse any debate. Pot and the cattle?

Of course not, rule #1: we the left are always right and rule #2: in case we are not right rule #1 comes in automatically.

So please, what is so funny again about Trump supporters, besides the fact that the left (U2?) rather sees them dissipate so they don't need #2 anymore?

 

Wow!  You make a false statement that is way off-topic and addresses nothing in my post, then use this to justify posting absolute nonsense.  You need to take a break.

[candide]

6 hours ago, hugocnx said:

The left is opposed to critical climate change thinkers and absolutely refuse any debate. Pot and the cattle?

Of course not, rule #1: we the left are always right and rule #2: in case we are not right rule #1 comes in automatically.

So please, what is so funny again about Trump supporters, besides the fact that the left (U2?) rather sees them dissipate so they don't need #2 anymore?

 

Lol.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/feb/06/humans-need-to-become-smarter-thinkers-to-beat-climate-denial

[heybruce]

18 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

 

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/voter-fraud-texas-evidence-non-citizens-voting/

 

I could provide tons of links and evidence but you will never care or yield, you know it and I know it. 

 

 

Great. If you think voter fraud is a potential negative for the Republican party (LOL) then we've got your support and im sure you wont have a problem with it. 

Most if not all claims of voter fraud follow a course similar to this one:

 

“We just recently learned that there are over 900 individuals who had died before the election (and had voted) and at least 600 of those individuals had died way outside the window that an absentee ballot could have been sent, so we know for a fact that there are deceased people whose identities are being used in elections in South Carolina.”

— South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson (R), on Fox News, Jan. 21, 2012

 

Following a proper investigation, the actual results were:

 

"In the end, just five votes remained unresolved after extensive investigation.

In other words, there were not “hundreds” of zombie voters — just egg on the face of the politicians who promoted these “facts” across national television."   https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-case-of-zombie-voters-in-south-carolina/2013/07/24/86de3c64-f403-11e2-aa2e-4088616498b4_blog.html?utm_term=.8b2e637fe649

 

Claims of widespread voter fraud are common.  None of them have held up under closer scrutiny, at least not for the last half century or so.  With the exception of the North Carolina election re-run because of voter fraud in favor of the Republican candidate.  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/21/north-carolina-voter-fraud-charges-dog-house-race-mark-harris/2938521002/