Kraken Loc: Barry's Bay

Gardening would be a nice change for him, he is probably getting tired of weaving baskets.

Texcaster Loc: Queensland

Keep up. Until further notice it's going to be ... "H****r B***n Derangement Syndrome".

Texcaster Loc: Queensland

He probably runs amok big time on the weaving forums. His handle is - weavingLikeaFotoartiste

mwalsh Loc: Houston

No one knows how rich trump is or isn't.

Forbes is just guessing.

I would make a significant bet that trump is about 1/3 as rich as he wants us to believe.

But we won't know till he goes completely bust.

National Park

Texcaster Loc: Queensland

DennyT - "Anyone that thinks trump ran fir president for any reason other that hyping his brand is a fool."

Exactly, it was a h**x to improve his chances of another season of ... "Short Fingered Vulgarian Reality Time".

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

News Flash to Tex: All presidents run because they have egos telling them they are the ones who the American people will look up to and be grateful for helping them.

Trump said he ran to clean up the bad deals Washington was making which were hurting hard working Americans pursue their dreams. And to allow the country to grow and financially prosper, and that would include him.

Nothing wrong with that except to Marxists.

CWGordon

Fotoguy:
I read your comments directed to me regarding the 60+ cases the radical lawyers challenging e*******l results.
I read them an hour ago. I spent an hour trying to figure out how you came to such an incorrect conclusion.
I was not going to bother responding. It seemed a waste of time. However, there may be people who think that you know what you’re talking about and might actually believe you are correct. So, I decided to explain things to you.
FIRST: The cases were easy to get to Court. No procedural problem seemed to prevent them from getting into Court. Getting there is easy. Once in Court what procedural problem coukd there possibly be? Well, if you admit you have no evidence or the Judge finds you have none, you would be dismissed. If you admit you have none or that you are not alleging widespread fraud, you will also be dismissed. Technically, you have no case. You can call it “procedural” in some way, but the bottom line is that there was no evidence to be used by the lawyers, so dismissal would then be pro forma. Simple, straightforward.
In any case, if one proceeds to Court and is dismissed, generally the Judge’s Decision will inform you what you did wrong, didn’t do, or provide. You will be allowed to correct your Defect, cure it, and refile to be heard when your case now has legal sufficiency. This is all so easy - up to this point - that one cannot imagine why these cases would not have been heard if they really actually had any evidence, any at all!
That these cases did not proceed is indicative that no evidence existed. It is irrefutable.
Since many of these Judge’s are Republican and a fair number Trump appointees, one can safely presume the rather abrupt way Judges threw these cases out and with the harsh language they used in doing so leads one to the inescapable conclusion that these cases had absolutely no merit. If incorrect, on my part or that of the Judges, where were the promised appeals? That is telling in and of itself.
Attorneys, as “Officers of the Court” have a duty to be candid (t***hful) with the Court. When pointed questions were posed to most of the lawyers, they shrank back, admitting they had no evidence and further stated they really were not alleging fraud. They face sanctions if they lie in order to proceed. Most lawyers are unwilling to chance losing their license and ability to Practice and make a living. I don’t blame them.
You challenged my statements. The burden of one challenging is that of backing up his or her allegations. Not only do I refuse to do your homework for you, but state such a burden is not mine, but rather yours. I am not interested in proving anything to you, as I have read your comments for quite sometime and come away with the opinion that would be fruitless. You do not strike me as open to any facts unless they agree with your opinion. Why would a person get sucked into doing such a thing? I won’t. You prove I am wrong. Don’t send me some conspiracy report to read. Provide an actual explanation for your opinion. Explain how you came to your conclusions, not just an accusation or allegation if you believe you can. It is likely you came to your opinion by reading, watching, or listening to some radicalized source. That means little. Note that I never quote a source. You won’t believe any source I come up with, anyway. This would be true even if I sent you photocopies of Court decisions. So, convince me with reasoning not just an opinion based on what you have chosen to believe and market as if it is fact.
I was courteous to Blurryeyed because he did what I ask that you do. You mocked my response to him. Does it make you upset that people of vastly differing opinions might try to discuss calmly and rationally their thought process and beliefs? I might not agree with much of what he or others believe, but I truly respected his and DukeTarHeel rationally discussing issues regarding their differing opinions. It is my opinion that such efforts are the only way to lower tensions and hostilities so prevalent in ourCountry today. Telling someone you appreciate and respect their openness and honesty seems a small step towards understanding each other and further openning communication. I am sorry you are not more willing to see this as a positive. You asked where my courtesy has been for the last four years. There were times I was not courteous. However, I have tried to be more open to discussing and listening to others who think and see differently things than do I. While I often still don’t agree, it helps to understand how others came to their beliefs and opinions. I hope in some small way that others might have benefitted from observing how my opinions are formed. Maybe, maybe not. You have never seemed open to explaining your opinions. You are often hostile and your comments often are insulting because other than name-calling you provide little real substance. You may have some real ideas that could be helpful if only you could EXPLAIN them. You never seem to try.
I also note that you criticize my not answering something you wanted me to answer. I can do the same. When I mentioned Attorney Sidney Powell is using an unusual defense in the cases where she is a Defendant you failed to answer or respond. Her defense is that her legal cases (that alleged much of what you have alleged) contained allegations so obviously false that no person of normal intelligence would believe them. It would seem she is insulting you who had faith in her and her legal cases. Does it bother you that she would so disparage those that supported her and/or her cases? How do you feel that she has taken such a position?
I wish you could involve yourself in real conversations with real substance. No hostility seems to benefit anyone. Or, maybe they do. You tell us, please. We remain open to your explanations.

GeorgeH Loc: Jonesboro, GA

An excellent post! I agree that Fotoguy makes generally unsubstantiated assertions and seems unable or unwilling to furnish sources; he also refuses to recognize that others may have opinions worthy of consideration. Rather than hold a conversation he generally insults those who don't agree with his opinion. I generally just ignore his posts.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Thank you very little for taking the time to respond to me. I will keep this short in return.

First off, paragraphs are your friend.

Second, I made statements containing this thought, ‘I am not aware of any (major) lawsuit where the 2020 E******n case was heard on the merits and ruled on. They were all mostly procedural rulings’. It sounds negative but it is a positive statement. I am claiming it didn’t happen and you are asking me to prove that. Isn’t that asking me to prove a negative? How can I prove something didn’t happen? The ball was in your court to rebut.

Third, I have said and continue to say, I am willing to change my mind if you can give me facts and data to back up your contention. And I have done that in the past here, at least once. But, Hey, my liberty is at stake here. I want a free and fair e*******l system in this country and I'm getting damn mad that more people don't.

Back to my second comment, I would love to see the 2020 E******n lawsuit case that was ruled on, and in whose favor it was in. It's about time. I’ve been looking for one for the past 5 months but haven’t found nary a one. But it has to be on the merits of the case, it doesn’t count if the judge dismissed it for any other reason including lack of evidence.

And too soon yet to talk about Sidney Powell. Thanks.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Do you have a source for your 'unsubstantiated assertions'? Show me where any of my opinions were not backed up by facts. And show me where you ever furnished a single source. Apparently though, you are the expert on opinions of other people. And you just demonstrated in your post how to unprovokedly attack and demean as well.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

What a looney bin you make it.

mwalsh Loc: Houston

Yet more unsubstantiated assertions on your part.

You are well known for them on here.

Keep yip yapping though!

You have become numero uno caricature on here!

Congratulations...

CWGordon

Fotoguy:
No, you challenged me. Prove I am wrong.
Your response is confusing, but supports our position re: your unsubstantiated claims and challenges and the attitude of your comments towards others
Why is it too early to comment on Sidney Powell defense? I don’t think it is a winning argument for the obvious reason she was not merely “puffing”, but was detailed and clearly wanted her claims to be believed. Regardless, win or lose, why can you not tell us your feelings about a defense that basically is an affront to all those, like you, that believed her every word and claim? When will you feel the time is right? When and what must occur to justify your expressing your feelings? What holds you back now? You have obviously a desire to avoid answering this question. Where is your credibility when you refuse to answer a question where the answer is clearly due? It is time you respond. There is no legitimate reason to refuse to answer.
C’mon give us a legitimate reason. No more excuses or evasion, ok?

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Regardless of how or why the presidency cost Trump a pile of money. Trump has decided to bypass another source of funding the previous presidents have not. Both Clintons. Both Obamas, Biden and others have made a large fortune giving lectures at 1/2 million apiece. Made millions from book deals. Trump has done none of these. The great majority of politicians leave politics with a great deal more money than when they started. Trump has not. Say wh**ever you want about Trump but you can't say he was in it for the money. There is no arguing that the presidency cost Trump a large fortune.