The Optics Of Trying To Remove Trump From Office

[Marener]

And you know how hacky partisan you sound not caring about it?

I care more about actual threats to the election integrity coming from corrupt politicians like Trump than I care about your imagined threats.

It makes you a hack to excuse his behavior.

 

[martybegan]

I care more about actual threats to the election integrity coming from corrupt politicians like Trump than I care about your imagined threats.

It makes you a hack to excuse his behavior.

Talk about made up bullshit....

 

[Marener]

Talk about made up bullshit....

Made up? You saw the fucking letter telling the Georgia legislature that they can meet and appoint new electors because they feel like it.

That’s not a threat to election integrity?

 

[martybegan]

Made up? You saw the fucking letter telling the Georgia legislature that they can meet and appoint new electors because they feel like it.

That’s not a threat to election integrity?

The letter asked them to investigate, nothing more or less.

 

[Marener]

The letter asked them to investigate, nothing more or less.

Too funny. The DoJ is telling a state legislature to “investigate”. Isn’t that what the DoJ is supposed to do? That’s right. They did and they found nothing. I guess that’s not in the letter. Must have forgot about it.

All that stuff about reminding them they can just appoint whoever they want for electors notwithstanding, oh and reminding them that they are some fake electors too. Yeah, nothing more.

You are such a hack. You are perfectly fine with politicians stealing the election because you are imagining potential fraud.

 

[Beekeeper]

You have no substantial evidence to prove yer opinion is truth.

LOL at another logic fail.

 

[Moonglow]

LOL at another logic fail.

Good evening.
The last scene was interesting from the point of view of a professional logician because it contained a number of logical fallacies; that is, invalid propositional constructions and syllogistic forms, of the type so often committed by my wife. "All wood burns," states Sir Bedevere. "Therefore," he concludes, "all that burns is wood." This is, of course, pure bullshit. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. Obvious, one would think.

However, my wife does not understand this necessary limitation of the conversion of a proposition; consequently, she does not understand me. For how can a woman expect to appreciate a professor of logic, if the simplest cloth-eared syllogism causes her to flounder.

For example, given the premise, "all fish live underwater" and "all mackerel are fish", my wife will conclude, not that "all mackerel live underwater", but that "if she buys kippers it will not rain", or that "trout live in trees", or even that "I do not love her any more." This she calls "using her intuition". I call it "crap", and it gets me very irritated because it is not logical.

"There will be no supper tonight," she will sometimes cry upon my return home. "Why not?" I will ask. "Because I have been screwing the milkman all day," she will say, quite oblivious of the howling error she has made. "But," I will wearily point out, "even given that the activities of screwing the milkman and getting supper are mutually exclusive, now that the screwing is over, surely then, supper may, logically, be got." "You don't love me any more," she will now often postulate. "If you did, you would give me one now and again, so that I would not have to rely on that rancid milkman for my orgasms." "I will give you one after you have got me my supper," I now usually scream, "but not before" -- as you understand, making her bang contingent on the arrival of my supper.

"God, you turn me on when you're angry, you ancient brute!" she now mysteriously deduces, forcing her sweetly throbbing tongue down my throat. "Fuck supper!" I now invariably conclude, throwing logic somewhat joyously to the four winds, and so we thrash about on our milk-stained floor, transported by animal passion, until we sink back, exhausted, onto the cartons of yoghurt.

I'm afraid I seem to have strayed somewhat from my original brief. But in a nutshell:

Sex is more fun than logic -- one cannot prove this, but it "is" in the same sense that Mount Everest "is", or that Alma Cogan "isn't".

Goodnight.

Dan Garcia : Monty Python's Professor of Logic

 

[Beekeeper]

Good evening.
The last scene was interesting from the point of view of a professional logician because it contained a number of logical fallacies; that is, invalid propositional constructions and syllogistic forms, of the type so often committed by my wife. "All wood burns," states Sir Bedevere. "Therefore," he concludes, "all that burns is wood." This is, of course, pure bullshit. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. Obvious, one would think.

However, my wife does not understand this necessary limitation of the conversion of a proposition; consequently, she does not understand me. For how can a woman expect to appreciate a professor of logic, if the simplest cloth-eared syllogism causes her to flounder.

For example, given the premise, "all fish live underwater" and "all mackerel are fish", my wife will conclude, not that "all mackerel live underwater", but that "if she buys kippers it will not rain", or that "trout live in trees", or even that "I do not love her any more." This she calls "using her intuition". I call it "crap", and it gets me very irritated because it is not logical.

"There will be no supper tonight," she will sometimes cry upon my return home. "Why not?" I will ask. "Because I have been screwing the milkman all day," she will say, quite oblivious of the howling error she has made. "But," I will wearily point out, "even given that the activities of screwing the milkman and getting supper are mutually exclusive, now that the screwing is over, surely then, supper may, logically, be got." "You don't love me any more," she will now often postulate. "If you did, you would give me one now and again, so that I would not have to rely on that rancid milkman for my orgasms." "I will give you one after you have got me my supper," I now usually scream, "but not before" -- as you understand, making her bang contingent on the arrival of my supper.

"God, you turn me on when you're angry, you ancient brute!" she now mysteriously deduces, forcing her sweetly throbbing tongue down my throat. "Fuck supper!" I now invariably conclude, throwing logic somewhat joyously to the four winds, and so we thrash about on our milk-stained floor, transported by animal passion, until we sink back, exhausted, onto the cartons of yoghurt.

I'm afraid I seem to have strayed somewhat from my original brief. But in a nutshell:

Sex is more fun than logic -- one cannot prove this, but it "is" in the same sense that Mount Everest "is", or that Alma Cogan "isn't".

Goodnight.

Dan Garcia : Monty Python's Professor of Logic

tldr

 

[Moonglow]

tldr

 

[martybegan]

Too funny. The DoJ is telling a state legislature to “investigate”. Isn’t that what the DoJ is supposed to do? That’s right. They did and they found nothing. I guess that’s not in the letter. Must have forgot about it.

All that stuff about reminding them they can just appoint whoever they want for electors notwithstanding, oh and reminding them that they are some fake electors too. Yeah, nothing more.

You are such a hack. You are perfectly fine with politicians stealing the election because you are imagining potential fraud.

At that point there were time limits involved.

Blowing things out of proportion is the left's only play remaining. It's pathetic.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Look in the mirror. Marjorie Taylor Greene had articles of impeachment against Joe Biden before he even was sworn into office.

Well.. let’s view it how the democrats did…

What did Biden do wrong to be up for impeachment?

I mean, you wouldnt dare say that impeachment could be used as a tool to attack your opponent… would you?

gasp

 

[Mr. Friscus]

No, he didn't. That's the construct you twats believe to justify the actions of Dems.

Again, you fucks opened this can of worms, now suck it down your well used throats, and choke on it.

It’s like when they (The Democrats) put in the “nuclear option” to strike down SCOTUS judges easier… and then whined and threw temper tantrums when the GOP used their nuclear option to keep Garland out.

They seriously couldn’t understand it. They think only they are allowed to do things?

 

[Marener]

At that point there were time limits involved.

Blowing things out of proportion is the left's only play remaining. It's pathetic.

They were the same time limits involved in 2000 when SCOTUS said that nothing could be changed after the safe harbor date.

It was a plot to overturn the election and Trump attempted to strong arm the DoJ into helping him.

But yeah, it’s Dems who are politicizing government?

You are such a hack that you refuse to acknowledge how far he crossed the line because you just hate half the country so badly.

 

[martybegan]

They were the same time limits involved in 2000 when SCOTUS said that nothing could be changed after the safe harbor date.

It was a plot to overturn the election and Trump attempted to strong arm the DoJ into helping him.

But yeah, it’s Dems who are politicizing government?

You are such a hack that you refuse to acknowledge how far he crossed the line because you just hate half the country so badly.

And yet nothing changed, no force was used, and Biden took office on time.

No lines were crossed.

 

[Marener]

And yet nothing changed, no force was used, and Biden took office on time.

No lines were crossed.

And if Trump had gotten everything he wanted, you still wouldn’t care.

If Biden had been kept out of office, you’d have supported it.

 

[martybegan]

And if Trump had gotten everything he wanted, you still wouldn’t care.

If Biden had been kept out of office, you’d have supported it.

If fraud was found and proven?

Damn right I would.

 

[Marener]

If fraud was found and proven?

Damn right I would.

Would you actually care if it’s proven or not? You already believe it was fraud without proof. Trump didn’t need proof. Neither do you.

 

[martybegan]

Would you actually care if it’s proven or not? You already believe it was fraud without proof. Trump didn’t need proof. Neither do you.

I think there was fraud, and when people do bad things, they try not to leave evidence of it lying around for everyone to find.

 

[hadit]

The Dems tried and failed to impeach Trump within a month of his taking offiice in 2017.

They were openly discussing how they could impeach him before he even took office. That's how crazy these people are.

 

[Marener]

I think there was fraud, and when people do bad things, they try not to leave evidence of it lying around for everyone to find.

Which means you’d have been just fine with overturning the election as you want.

Because of what you think happened.

Proof is not necessary for you. Don’t pretend it is.

It isn’t for Trump. It isn’t for you.