Trump Concedes???

Ok. I’ll admit I was wrong on that. I’m not above stating when I’m wrong. Now saying HF is one of the reasonable idiots, I won’t go that far. I thought he was one of the smarter ones but he’s proven me wrong on that by saying some truly asinine stuff over the past weeks. Look at the thread on voter fraud. He filled it with dumbness. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Like What? One example please. Anybody can make generalized statements but if you say "here's what I'm talking about", you get backed into a corner you may not have an easy time getting out of.



Willing to debate you any time on anything I have said but you never seem to get specific, just generalities. Why is that?


I'll start you off, "here's one dumb thing he said"................ You're up.


I keep giving you chance after chance to prove your point but you never do. Why is that?

This is true. Hedonist predicted a Biden win back around October 10 in the thread where we all made our predictions on the number of electoral votes each candidate would receive. And he also acknowledged that Trump had lost and we needed to move on. I think but am not sure the later was in the thread that was started with a Wall Street Journal editorial where Karl Rove acknowledged the same.

Blackman, Hedonist is one of the more rationale posters on the board, although he does get a little caught up in the Trumpian rhetoric every once in a while. Originally Posted by Tiny

Thank you for the compliment Tiny but I'm going to have to call you out just like I did with 1blackman1, multiple times now. He never steps up to the challenge but I hope you will. Maybe I can learn something I'm not aware of that I'm doing but you have to show me.


What does "caught up in Trump rhetoric mean? an example would help.

Are you that dense, HF?

Do you deny there is a Trump narrative that you “occasionally” echo?

Do you deny there is a Trump narrative?

Do you disagree with the Trump narrative, just in case you acknowledge its existence?

If a train left Chicago doing 80 mph...

I thought you said turds and co-eds how cool.

Thank you for the compliment Tiny but I'm going to have to call you out just like I did with 1blackman1, multiple times now. He never steps up to the challenge but I hope you will. Maybe I can learn something I'm not aware of that I'm doing but you have to show me.


What does "caught up in Trump rhetoric mean? an example would help. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Hedonist, I said "Trumpian" rhetoric, meaning rhetoric of supporters of President Trump, as distinguished from Trump rhetoric. Maybe it's a difference in what we think's important. A good example would be Hunter Biden, who you've posted about a good bit. I think you've bought into the story. I don't see the evidence that the Biden's are some kind of Mafia family. Yeah there's nothing admirable about Hunter trading on his name, but the sins of the sons should not be visited upon their fathers. A number of people on the left are "guilty" of something similar if the subject is Trump and Russian collusion. And you could say the same about me, when we're talking about taxes, fracking and masks.

The case is still on going! Google is your friend lazy person! Originally Posted by winn dixie

Then post a link to some evidence. I don't believe you.

Then post a link to some evidence. I don't believe you. Originally Posted by pfunkdenver

Stop being stereotypical!

Stop being stereotypical! Originally Posted by winn dixie

You’re showing symptoms of another massive meltdown.

Take two of these and check your PMS, bub!

Are you hitting on me yssup?

Better luck with wtf or speedy!

Hedonist, I said "Trumpian" rhetoric, meaning rhetoric of supporters of President Trump, as distinguished from Trump rhetoric. Maybe it's a difference in what we think's important. A good example would be Hunter Biden, who you've posted about a good bit. I think you've bought into the story. I don't see the evidence that the Biden's are some kind of Mafia family. Yeah there's nothing admirable about Hunter trading on his name, but the sins of the sons should not be visited upon their fathers. A number of people on the left are "guilty" of something similar if the subject is Trump and Russian collusion. And you could say the same about me, when we're talking about taxes, fracking and masks. Originally Posted by Tiny

Thank you tiny for responding, it's more than I got from 1blackman1 and sportsfisherman but that was to be expected. You are an honorable person.


Bought into the story? I'm posting facts as they occur, it is up to everybody else to decide what to believe. I haven't said a single thing to my knowledge that isn't factual.


Hunter Biden's laptop is now in the hands of the FBI, fact. There are reports of personal e-mails on that laptop, fact. Is there anything of an illegal nature on that laptop? I do not know. I have never said I believe this or that to be true because that isn't what I do. I report what is in the news and every news site in existence, has acknowledged exactly what I just said.


A third party Tony Bobulinski has come forward and said he has knowledge of the workings of Hunter Biden because Hunter chose him to be the CEO of Hunter's company that was dealing with China, fact. The fact that the New York Post and Fox News are only a few media that have acknowledged the existance of Bubulinski, doesn't mean the man doesn't exist.


I repeated what Mr. Bobulinski said in his interview, an interview he also had with the FBI that I have no knowledge of it's content but on Tucker Carlson, he said that he had two meetings with Joe and Hunter so Joe could give the final thumbs up or down on Bobulinski being the CEO. If true, proof positive that Joe Biden lied about having knowledge of what Hunter was doing and was in fact, as confirmed by Bobulinski, that Joe Biden was "the Big Guy" referenced in the alleged e-mail's about financial distributions from the Chinese. That is corroborating evidence by testimony as to the authenticity of the laptop and it's content. Is it enough to bring down Joe, I do not know but if "buying into it, means acknowledging the facts of the case, then I think we need a new definition.


Is that "buying into" the story or is it merely repeating public facts? If these facts are true, Biden is in deep trouble, if they are not true or if the FBI doesn't think they rise to the level of a crime, influence peddling to name one, we will find out with an indictment of Hunter at least and the opening of an investigation into what role Joe may or may not have played or the FBI will be silent but if the Republicans keep the Senate, we'll hear a lot more about this..


For the life of me, I don't see how that is playing into "Trumpian" or Trump rhetoric. These are facts. The only thing we don't know yet, is whether they will amount to anything which I readily admit. If I have ever said "I believe them to be true", I would amend that to "it sure sounds damning, much like what the media reported on Russia/ Trump collusion" which turned out to be noting. So, if asked, did Joe Biden commit the crime of influence peddling, "I do not know". How I can be faulted for that, I can not see.


Now, as much as I hate to bring you into a disagreement by other parties, I'm going to ask anyway because how can we learn if we are unwilling to ask.



1 blackman1 calls "I don't know" relative to the outcome of all the court hearings on the election, as hedging. I call it what any sane, reasonable person would say who doesn't know a particular outcome until we know for a fact what the outcome is, which is decided by a court. In the case of issues being decided in court, nobody can "know" what the outcome will be. They can "guess" and they can assure us that they are right because they are always right but I don't roll that way.


But since I have you, a person whose opinion I respect if not always agree with, is saying "I don't know" if fraud happened to the degree that it might change a particular state outcome, show us significant irregularities even if it doesn't change the out come of the election,

"hedging" or a valid honest opinion?


One explanation of hedging is that you don't give an answer because you are afraid of being wrong. Since I have never been afraid of being wrong and on the rare occasion I have, I am willing to admit I was wrong but in this case, I'm not going to admit I'm wrong until the last gavel has come down. Am I wrong? Am I hedging or simply admitting I don't know because that is the truth of the matter?


I compare this to being Agnostic, which I am. Is that "hedging" on the issue of whether there is a God, a Supreme Being that watches over us or is it merely a position taken by someone who admits they don't know and will not be brow beaten into making a yes or no opinion on anything.


I have the feeling you will understand this even if 1 blackman1 can not for his own set of reasons. While I'm not saying I will demure to your opinion, I would like to hear it.


Is it hedging to say I'll wait for the final judgement before rendering an opinion on fraud be it slight or massive, might change a state outcome but not necessarily the over all out come?

Thank you tiny for responding, it's more than I got from 1blackman1 and sportsfisherman but that was to be expected. You are an honorable person.


Bought into the story? I'm posting facts as they occur, it is up to everybody else to decide what to believe. I haven't said a single thing to my knowledge that isn't factual.


Hunter Biden's laptop is now in the hands of the FBI, fact. There are reports of personal e-mails on that laptop, fact. Is there anything of an illegal nature on that laptop? I do not know. I have never said I believe this or that to be true because that isn't what I do. I report what is in the news and every news site in existence, has acknowledged exactly what I just said.


A third party Tony Bobulinski has come forward and said he has knowledge of the workings of Hunter Biden because Hunter chose him to be the CEO of Hunter's company that was dealing with China, fact. The fact that the New York Post and Fox News are only a few media that have acknowledged the existance of Bubulinski, doesn't mean the man doesn't exist.


I repeated what Mr. Bobulinski said in his interview, an interview he also had with the FBI that I have no knowledge of it's content but on Tucker Carlson, he said that he had two meetings with Joe and Hunter so Joe could give the final thumbs up or down on Bobulinski being the CEO. If true, proof positive that Joe Biden lied about having knowledge of what Hunter was doing and was in fact, as confirmed by Bobulinski, that Joe Biden was "the Big Guy" referenced in the alleged e-mail's about financial distributions from the Chinese. That is corroborating evidence by testimony as to the authenticity of the laptop and it's content. Is it enough to bring down Joe, I do not know but if "buying into it, means acknowledging the facts of the case, then I think we need a new definition.


Is that "buying into" the story or is it merely repeating public facts? If these facts are true, Biden is in deep trouble, if they are not true or if the FBI doesn't think they rise to the level of a crime, influence peddling to name one, we will find out with an indictment of Hunter at least and the opening of an investigation into what role Joe may or may not have played or the FBI will be silent but if the Republicans keep the Senate, we'll hear a lot more about this..


For the life of me, I don't see how that is playing into "Trumpian" or Trump rhetoric. These are facts. The only thing we don't know yet, is whether they will amount to anything which I readily admit. If I have ever said "I believe them to be true", I would amend that to "it sure sounds damning, much like what the media reported on Russia/ Trump collusion" which turned out to be noting. So, if asked, did Joe Biden commit the crime of influence peddling, "I do not know". How I can be faulted for that, I can not see.


Now, as much as I hate to bring you into a disagreement by other parties, I'm going to ask anyway because how can we learn if we are unwilling to ask.



1 blackman1 calls "I don't know" relative to the outcome of all the court hearings on the election, as hedging. I call it what any sane, reasonable person would say who doesn't know a particular outcome until we know for a fact what the outcome is, which is decided by a court. In the case of issues being decided in court, nobody can "know" what the outcome will be. They can "guess" and they can assure us that they are right because they are always right but I don't roll that way.


But since I have you, a person whose opinion I respect if not always agree with, is saying "I don't know" if fraud happened to the degree that it might change a particular state outcome, show us significant irregularities even if it doesn't change the out come of the election,

"hedging" or a valid honest opinion?


One explanation of hedging is that you don't give an answer because you are afraid of being wrong. Since I have never been afraid of being wrong and on the rare occasion I have, I am willing to admit I was wrong but in this case, I'm not going to admit I'm wrong until the last gavel has come down. Am I wrong? Am I hedging or simply admitting I don't know because that is the truth of the matter?


I compare this to being Agnostic, which I am. Is that "hedging" on the issue of whether there is a God, a Supreme Being that watches over us or is it merely a position taken by someone who admits they don't know and will not be brow beaten into making a yes or no opinion on anything.


I have the feeling you will understand this even if 1 blackman1 can not for his own set of reasons. While I'm not saying I will demure to your opinion, I would like to hear it.


Is it hedging to say I'll wait for the final judgement before rendering an opinion on fraud be it slight or massive, might change a state outcome but not necessarily the over all out come? Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Hedonist, Correct me if I'm wrong, because I haven't been following Hunter Biden in the news, but I believe the incidents you described involving Bobulinski occurred in 2017, after Biden left the presidency. If so they're irrelevant. If Hunter's going to describe what he's working on and even ask for advice from his father, in most instances that's not relevant either. It would depend of course on exactly "what he's working on" and what's discussed.

The most damning thing I've read that's real is that Hunter flew on Air Force Two with Joe to Beijing in 2013, where he met Jonathan Li. Li recruited Hunter to become a board member of BHR Partners, a private equity firm backed by China state owned banks and local governments, among others. So Hunter's trading on Joe Biden's name, while Joe is Vice President of the United States. It's very possible, maybe likely, the Chinese government was trying to ingratiate itself with the Vice President, by having a firm it controlled hire his son. Does that mean that Joe did anything illegal or that he should be disqualified from the presidency for this? Probably not. But is this something that should have been considered by voters when they made their choices? Of course.

I don't buy in at all to Hunter having gotten paid 1.5 billion or whatever from the Chinese, or that Joe Biden was calling the shots or having money kicked upstairs to him, like some kind of mafia don.

As to the election, potential fraud needs to be investigated, of course. If you go back far enough, to Daley or LBJ, there are instances where voting fraud perpetrated by Democrats probably elected people to powerful positions. I suspect that's harder to get away with now, and just don't see why Biden wouldn't be the winner given his 3.9% / 6 million vote / 74 electoral vote advantage. I'd like to see Trump's legal team continue to pursue investigation of reasonably-believable cases of fraud, but don't see how that's going to overturn the election, given the number of states and votes he lost. I'd like to see Trump recognize reality because I think not doing so is hurting Republicans' chances in the Georgia runoffs.

Yes, it is reasonable to say "I don't know if fraud has occurred." I just don't see how it could have occurred on a scale sufficient to make Trump the winner.

Go ahead Hedger, you know well what I asked vs what you decided to answer. I asked you a simple question. Do you believe that there is massive fraud on the scale that is being alleged? Do you believe that voting machines were being tampered with by the Argentines to deprive Trump of votes? Do you believe that millions of illegal votes were cast in the 16 and 20 elections? Do you believe that 100s of 1000s of votes were fraudulently cast to turn the election against Trump?

See you believe one way or another on those questions. But you want to hedge by claiming to "not know" whether you believe it or not until the court decides whether it can be proven. I did not ask you whether it could proven, I said unequivocally that it won't be proven because I dont believe that it is 1) true in the least bit or 2) that there exists any proof or evidence to support the allegations. I have said unequivocally that people that do believe the allegations are stupid because the basis of the belief is damned stupid.

HF, you know what you believe. You could say, "I believe it, but I want to see whether proof will be provided". You don't want to do that because you know that the allegation and is pretty dumb, and to avoid looking dumb like the rest of the folks, you punt to "well, I dont know whether it is true, lets see what the court says."

what you believe and what will be proven at court at two totally different things. Dont conflate them for the sake of evading committing to what most of know is a pretty stupid position.

Go ahead Hedger, you know well what I asked vs what you decided to answer. I asked you a simple question. Do you believe that there is massive fraud on the scale that is being alleged? Do you believe that voting machines were being tampered with by the Argentines to deprive Trump of votes? Do you believe that millions of illegal votes were cast in the 16 and 20 elections? Do you believe that 100s of 1000s of votes were fraudulently cast to turn the election against Trump?


And I said, none of that is knowable without an instigation. I also said I thought it unlikely. I made that comment before the now infamous press conference and I made it after the press conference


See you believe one way or another on those questions.


No, you don't. There is always a third option as any Agnostic will tell you but you have to be right, I recognize that in your Trumpian type personality.


But you want to hedge by claiming to "not know" whether you believe it or not until the court decides whether it can be proven. I did not ask you whether it could proven, I said unequivocally


Yes you did and I'm not a person that uses the word unequivocally. Many people just like you used that word when discussing the Trump/ Russia collusion story like Adam Shitt for brains and he was wrong which is why it is foolish to use the word "unequivocally.



that it won't be proven because I dont believe that it is 1) true in the least bit or 2) that there exists any proof or evidence to support the allegations.



And that is what courts are for, finding evidence. That I have to remind an attorney of that is stunning. And I provided proof that in the very recent past, Democrats including two Senators, questioned whether those voting machines and software could be trusted. Then when Republicans say the same thing, that is confirmation for me that the situation must be looked into and points to the hypocrisy of Democrats but there is nothing new in that..



I have said unequivocally that people that do believe the allegations are stupid because the basis of the belief is damned stupid.

HF, you know what you believe. You could say, "I believe it, but I want to see whether proof will be provided". You don't want to do that because you know that the allegation and is pretty dumb, and to avoid looking dumb like the rest of the folks, you punt to "well, I dont know whether it is true, lets see what the court says."

what you believe and what will be proven at court at two totally different things. Dont conflate them for the sake of evading committing to what most of know is a pretty stupid position. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Precisely the point. Why say "I believe it but I want to see whether proof will be provided"?


That would be hedging, giving more than one answer in the same sentence.


I can see now that you do not understand this or are just being obtuse because, well, that's your shtick.


"I want to see if proof will be provided" and "lets see what the courts say" is exactly the same thing.


You can "guess" and be all full of yourself that "you know" what the outcome will be but I'm not that boastful, I don't have that "need" to be right that you seem to have. That's a Trump trait.


Like I said, I'm Agnostic. I'm not going to say "I believe but I want to see if proof will be provided". I"m going to say I will not commit to believe or not believe because that is not a definition implied in the word Agnostic.


I think we have both thoroughly exhausted our opinions on the matter and since we are talking about what I believe and have no real concern as to what you believe, I'm content in my opinion .

Hedonist, Correct me if I'm wrong, because I haven't been following Hunter Biden in the news, but I believe the incidents you described involving Bobulinski occurred in 2017, after Biden left the presidency. If so they're irrelevant.


You are right about the timeline and that may very well eliminate any criminal culpability on the part of Joe but as you say, it certainly would be something the voters would want to know since he swore that he had no knowledge of what his son was doing. That much we know for sure was a lie. I'll leave it up to the FBI to decide the legal niceties.


And lets remember one thing if nothing else we learned from the Trump impeachment, you do not have to have broken the law, committed a criminal act, to be impeached. While this will never happen with a Democrat House, what if the House turns Republican in 2022 and the Republicans still hold the Senate? While it may not fly with the American people, it is certainly possible that the Republicans could bring forth articles of impeachment whether valid or not, just like in my opinion Democrats did, just for payback. "Not acting in a manner benefiting the President". And I think adequate proof has been provided that Joe Biden got money from the Hunter plan with China and AGAIN, lied about it. I'm talking about the $10,000 held for "the Big Guy" which we know is Joe Biden. I'm no prosecutor, I don't know the ins and outs of the legal possibilities here but if Joe Biden did all the things he is accused of doing, legal or not, could have a very big impact on the 2022 elections.



If Hunter's going to describe what he's working on and even ask for advice from his father, in most instances that's not relevant either.

Maybe not relevant to a criminal case against Joe but certainly relevant as to whether Joe Biden acted in a manner worthy of being President.


It would depend of course on exactly "what he's working on" and what's discussed.



True and that's why I do not believe the investigation will be over if the Republicans keep the Senate and like I said, even if criminality can't be proven against Joe, this could look a whole lot worse for Biden before this is all over with.


The most damning thing I've read that's real is that Hunter flew on Air Force Two with Joe to Beijing in 2013, where he met Jonathan Li. Li recruited Hunter to become a board member of BHR Partners, a private equity firm backed by China state owned banks and local governments, among others. So Hunter's trading on Joe Biden's name, while Joe is Vice President of the United States. It's very possible, maybe likely, the Chinese government was trying to ingratiate itself with the Vice President, by having a firm it controlled hire his son. Does that mean that Joe did anything illegal or that he should be disqualified from the presidency for this? Probably not. But is this something that should have been considered by voters when they made their choices? Of course.


And how the hell would a majority of the voters know this if they didn't watch Fox News? I can't say for sure since I didn't watch every single MSM broadcast but I would bet a small fortune that this incident was not covered by CNN and MSNBC the way the Trump and Trump Jr. plane ride was covered concerning the "meeting" with the Russian babe. How did you hear about it? And since Joe was VP at the time this happened, any relevant criminal acts by Hunter and Joe, could come back to bite Joe in the ass. At the very least, this would show a possible connection between Biden and China, the same kind of alleged connection that Trump had with Russia ie, trying to do business and that could hurt him in his future dealings with China. Not hard to imagine the right wing press doing the same thing to Biden that was done to Trump concerning any dealings Biden has with China. "Is what he is doing favorable to China because....."?


I don't buy in at all to Hunter having gotten paid 1.5 billion or whatever from the Chinese, or that Joe Biden was calling the shots or having money kicked upstairs to him, like some kind of mafia don.



From a little research I just did, it appears that the 1.5 billion was a number brought up in the negotiations with China as a number they hopped to raise and in fact exceeded that number eventually but Hunter Biden certainly did not get a billion dollar "deal" from China, just a promise of interest and co-operation. As to any kick back money to Joe, the only evidence to that would be on the laptop and Bobulinski concerning a different deal which by all accounts, looks like Joe benefited from or was suppose to benefit to the tune of $10,000. Whether that actually happened would require further investigation.


As to the election, potential fraud needs to be investigated, of course.


And that was the gist of my comments


If you go back far enough, to Daley or LBJ, there are instances where voting fraud perpetrated by Democrats probably elected people to powerful positions. I suspect that's harder to get away with now, and just don't see why Biden wouldn't be the winner given his 3.9% / 6 million vote / 74 electoral vote advantage. I'd like to see Trump's legal team continue to pursue investigation of reasonably-believable cases of fraud, but don't see how that's going to overturn the election, given the number of states and votes he lost.


Again, ( 1 blackman1 ) I never said an investigation "might" over turn the election because at the time this kicked into gear, Trump needed all 5 remaining states to win and Biden only need one. A seemingly insurmountable lead unless "massive" fraud could be proven and the only way that could happen would be the manipulation of voting machines and the software used and I reminded everybody, that Warren and Klobuchar were worried about the use of Dominion machines before the election.


I'd like to see Trump recognize reality because I think not doing so is hurting Republicans' chances in the Georgia runoffs.


The analysis of the race will be very interesting. Trump going after the Republican Governor is just one more in a long list of dumb things he has done IMHO.


Yes, it is reasonable to say "I don't know if fraud has occurred." I just don't see how it could have occurred on a scale sufficient to make Trump the winner. Originally Posted by Tiny

Thank you and I agree. But learning of any and all election irregularities serves a purpose to our voting system and all Americans should be interested in knowing the degree even if not "effectual" to the outcome.

Been gone a week and some are still talking about BoBo Belinsky from the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers comic book.

Perhaps we need to get "Mr. Natural" to come testify as well ?
And after that maybe "Cheech and Chong" ?

This election is over and has been over for a month.

Does Trump and his supporters have ANY pride ? No

This is a Litigious Lame Duck. He has a history of litigation to screw contractors and workers who performed work for him and then were not paid.

I personally do not like overly litigious people.

Trump and the actions of some of his supporters is a National Disgrace !

If one were able to scrutinize every vote what one would find is that almost all were legitimate and cast by lawful citizens.Evidence for this is most glaring in that downballot Repubs did well.Voters just did not want Trump anymore.

The election did allow for more Dems to vote who had virus concerns and voters of color and lower economic status.There are poor people who have a hard time getting off work to vote or who have trouble getting to the polls.

For the Repubs to Pretend there is no pandemic and not make allowances for that by expanding early and mail-in voting is ludicrous.Trump made challenges to these allowances and lost - prior to the election.

Now all his post-election challenges have failed.

There will be no Trump 2024 cause by then his tax returns will be out and he will face legal defeats in courts.

Trump is a Traitor and should be charged with Treason.It's ironic that most of his supporters Front like they are so Patriotic and America loving.

What a Joke !!

I wonder how long I will have to wait for the Professor to grade my paper like in freshman English class and edit and add his annotations to my post.