@glitterbag,
glitterbag wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
I agree. As we both know the laws of most countries allow for the use of anecdotal evidence and the presumption of a reasoning person to prove perjury under the law.
However Blatham has the practice of very frequently asserting the certainty of nefarious conspiracies on the part of those whose political views he doesn't share, while assuming only virtuous intent on the part of those he agrees with. Moreover. he appears to believe those conclusions of his constitute objective reality.
For starters, all you need to say is 'frequently', very frequently is almost as bad as very very frequently (Trumpian). It's also tiresome watching you struggle to sound clever or droll when you belittle others who dare express opinions that you believe they are not entitled to have. From a strictly selfish or perverse point of view, I love it when you get into one of those Capt. Winchester or one of the Jim Backus fav roles, but I have a thick skin. So, although you're predictable, I want to thank you for the amusement you provide.
As in Hamlet, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"
I think she occasionally goes even beyond that. Perhaps other motives involved.
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:I do not accept your premise that Trump deliberately made statements that he knew at the time to be false more than Clinton did.
I really like how you triple-hedge your statement here, Brandon.
- Trump might have said things that are demonstrably, verifiably, objectively false, but he might not have known at the time that the things he said were complete and utter falsehoods.
- Trump might have said things that are demonstrably, verifiably, objectively false that he knew to be complete falsehoods when he said them, but he might not have done so deliberately. We're all left to guess what the alternative is.
- Trump might have deliberately said things that are demonstrably, verifiably, objectively false and that he knew to be complete falsehoods when he said them, but he might not have done so more than Clinton did.
@georgeob1,
Golly, that might sting if uh uh well I'm not sure if I can think of a situation where it might sting.
Ya know, some people think that when a person is adjudged to be "not guilty" in a court of law, that proves they are "innocent."
A clever criminal who has successfully hidden or destroyed the evidence against him can confidently proclaim that he is innocent, without fear of exposure.
But, ya know, if a guy's guilty, he's guilty. And if I say he is, I aint lyin.
@old europe,
Oh wow! I hope I can remember those codes when I want to indent something.
Los Angeles is what? 8-10 million people or so.
Almost half of it's residents are hispanic. California issues driver's licenses to undocumented aliens. In order to vote in a presidential election in California, you need only show a driver's license. Same in at least 12 other states.
With access to the data, one might easily prove exactly how many foreigners voted in 2016. But, hey, these are "sanctuary cities." You are not allowed to see the data.
YOU'LL NEVER PROVE IT, SO THAT PROVES IT'S FALSE!!
@farmerman,
Quote:Hes more like one of these guys. NOT THAT THERES ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT
That was a moving moment, wasn't it. Who knew a kiss could be so gentle.
@layman,
layman wrote:California issues driver's licenses to undocumented aliens. In order to vote in a presidential election in California, you need only show a driver's license.
AB-60 driver's license can not be used for identification purposes. In fact, it's printed right on the license that "It does not establish eligibility for voter registration."
But I still appreciate a good conspiracy theory.
Historical data of note:
1) Trump arrives in office as the most unpopular president in memory (or ever)
2) Trump's favorability ratings right now lower by 20 points than Obama at same point
@layman,
Pence is his best assurance that won't happen.
@cicerone imposter,
Slight tangent -
Cicerone or anyone else, what are those square thingies I keep seeing on people's posts?
@old europe,
Quote:If you would like to register online, you can submit an application by using the California Online Voter Registration website.
You'll be asked to answer a series of questions and enter your personal information, including:
Your CA driver's license or ID number.
Your Social Security number.
Your birth date.
The system will check with the California DMV to ensure that your signature is on file.
You can also register to vote when visiting a Department of Motor Vehicles office to obtain a California driver's license or register your vehicle.
http://www.dmv.org/ca-california/voter-registration.php
I don't see nuthin about showin no birth certificate or proof of citizenship there, eh? I wonder why not? Oh, yeah, that's right, because it's not required.
@old europe,
Thanks for that info. I figured that was likely, but wasn't sure.
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
Clinton's margin in the popular vote has now exceeded 2.5 million.
Is that important? Bernie Sanders also won the popular vote, but somehow he didn't get the nomination. Things in America aren't dependent on the popular vote.
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
I think he is going to be fighting an internal war with the Ryan/ McConnell wing wherein they feel like they've been given some LICENSE to destruct the Union and trash the Constitution.
I'm thinking that Romney's penance for doubting der Donald will be , like Moses travail, just be able to gaze at the "promised lend" but never enter it.
Trash the Constitution? You mean put it back together again, right? The Dem's have trashed it enough. Hopefully Trump will re-establish what the Federal govt is supposed to be like.
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
Historical data of note:
1) Trump arrives in office as the most unpopular president in memory (or ever)
2) Trump's favorability ratings right now lower by 20 points than Obama at same point
And yet he is still going to be President. I guess it's all in whom you poll at any given time. I bet if you polled upstate NY, you'd find different results. Or WV, or Mo, or any rural area really...
@layman,
layman wrote:I wonder why not? Oh, yeah, that's right, because it's not required.
You're wrong, but it's endearing how you're trying.
It's not listed because it links to the online registration, and the website rejects AB-60s as invalid.
