Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, January 09, 2021

Following Wednesday's storming of the U.S. Capitol, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) shared his thoughts of those challenging the electoral count, explaining they misunderstand how America elects its presidents. According to Crenshaw, those who showed up to make their voices heard in D.C. were falsely led to believe the final say in who is elected president belonged to Congress.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Another GOPer looking to jump the crazy train coming up a day late and a dollar short.

#1 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2021-01-09 03:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

"Another GOPer looking to jump the crazy train coming up a day late and a dollar short."

I haven't been following him for very long, but it seems this guy is legit. He's been calling out Trumpers and Qtards since before election day.

#2 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-01-09 04:09 AM | Reply

"explaining they misunderstand how America elects its presidents."

Ah yes, they're simply "misunderstood."

It's not like they tried to overthrow Congress to prevent Biden being elected President.

They're simply "misunderstood."

Get this White Power trash outta here.

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-01-09 04:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'd reserve judgement on Crenshaw as he may just be trying to clean up his own image:

Vet groups call on Congress to investigate Dan Crenshaw's alleged smearing of a sexual assault victim

taskandpurpose.com

Lawmaker faces possible ethics inquiry for role in VA sexual assault investigation scandal

www.militarytimes.com

#4 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2021-01-09 06:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Would you like some sauce with that fishy red herring?

#5 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-01-09 09:38 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Ah yes, they're simply "misunderstood."

Have you ever thought about trying to respond to threads without trolling in a lamely obvious way? Nobody said that, and you didn't just accidentally misread "they misunderstand" as "they're misunderstood".

#6 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-01-09 09:46 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Nope.

I liked Crenshaw at first. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, honored his service, and then I heard him going further and further down the Trump drain. He is as guilty as any of the Republican scum that rode the Trump Train and bilked and manipulated their base for political and financial gain. He turned out to be a piece of ----.

The "misunderstood" -------- has to stop. This rehabilitation of reputation is cynical. HE like the radicalized Trump supporters THEY need to be rehabilitated. Not their "image."

All these "falsely led" people weren't falsely led - it was intentional by s**theads - and Crenshaw was one of them.

F**k him.

#7 | Posted by YAV at 2021-01-09 09:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"I'd reserve judgement on Crenshaw as he may just be trying to clean up his own image:"

The capitol has been ransacked and desecrated.

It's too late to apologize now.

#8 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-01-09 09:56 AM | Reply

I have no doubt that most of those taking part in Wednesday's riot do not understand the election process. Where Crenshaw is mistaken though is in thinking he can educate them so that they do understand.

They do not want to understand, because to do so would require them to acknowledge they may be wrong. Even worse, they may be forced to face the fact that the values that underpin the America touted to the world as the beacon of democracy are not actually their core values.

Last evening I tested my theory. I registered for thedonald.win. On a thread raging against the injustice of censorship by big tech, someone had posted that the actions of the tech companies were " the biggest attack on the first amendment in the history of our republic." I posted simply that the first amendment did not apply to private companies. My post was deleted within a hour or so.

So much for values.

#9 | Posted by Foreigner at 2021-01-09 09:56 AM | Reply

All these "falsely led" people weren't falsely led - it was intentional by s**theads - and Crenshaw was one of them.

Note the date on this:
news.yahoo.com

"F**k him."

I have a better idea, how about discuss the merits of what he said here, which was the topic of this thread? Otherwise someone might think you're shooting at the message.

#10 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-01-09 10:06 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

I'm not going to listen to what he said. I know his past. He blew his chance with me back with his support for this --------.

Nope.

F**k him.

#11 | Posted by YAV at 2021-01-09 10:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Oh, I saw the date; Nov 6th.

He has a history before then. His accusations of voter fraud were the same as Trump's:
www.texastribune.org

Here's more of his history:
www.newsweek.com

He's also defended trump's child separation policy. That was the point where I started taking a harder look at him.

#13 | Posted by YAV at 2021-01-09 10:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Nice try Sentinel.

These are going to be the same posters that "would never have voted for Trump......twice"

We've seen this already with W. You probably never heard of that guy, right?

#14 | Posted by bocaink at 2021-01-09 10:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#14 - Nailed it.

#15 | Posted by YAV at 2021-01-09 10:51 AM | Reply

"At this point brother you are lucky this kind of messenger doesn't get shot."

Not sure if you're referring to me or him, but either way that sounds like an incitement to violence, if not a direct threat.

#16 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-01-09 11:10 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

"These are going to be the same posters that "would never have voted for Trump......twice"

So now we're going further down the rabbit hole filled with red men and straw herrings. I voted against Trump both times.

#17 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-01-09 11:14 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Not sure if you're referring to me or him, but either way that sounds like an incitement to violence, if not a direct threat.

#16 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Too late the violence has already been incited. We have crossed the Rubicon.

I am telling you that folks are so angry at the desecration of our capitol. Angry enough to shoot.

I will not be surprised by further violence. Will you?

#18 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-01-09 11:22 AM | Reply

"I will not be surprised by further violence. Will you?"

No. Nor will I be surprised by vaguely worded statements that could be interpreted as incitements of further violence. "lucky he doesn't get shot" sounds exactly like the dodgy --- Trump has been saying and then pretending he wasn't inciting anything.

#19 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-01-09 11:33 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Posted by sentinel

Jesus wept, yer one clueless SOB.

#20 | Posted by Angrydad at 2021-01-09 12:18 PM | Reply

Not clueless. Sentinel is here to whitewash the truth.

He knows exactly what he's doing.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-01-09 01:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

His actual column is good in that it calls out the insurrectionists and those who lied to rile them up.

But he gives mealy mouthed support for the notion that election integrity is questionable, using the same what ifs and possibles as the liars who are responsible for Wednesday's horror show.

#22 | Posted by jpw at 2021-01-09 01:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

He knows exactly what he's doing.

#21 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Sadly for him. The old game doesn't work anymore.

Enough is enough.

And we have obviously had enough.

#23 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-01-09 03:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Sadly for him. The old game doesn't work anymore."

If you knew where I heard this insinuation before, in fact almost verbatim within the past 48 hours, you'd be hanging your head in shame. LOL.
Peas in a pod y'all are.

"And we have obviously had enough."

Oh no you haven't. You'll continue to let me live in your heads rent-free, and follow me around like lost puppies begging for personal attention, just like certain sad lonely losers on the right.

#24 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-01-09 06:42 PM | Reply

"But he gives mealy mouthed support for the notion that election integrity is questionable, using the same what ifs and possibles as the liars who are responsible for Wednesday's horror show."

Can you cite where he's made claims that there was sufficient election fraud to change the outcome of the election? It seems to be that's what he was sparring with other Republicans about both before and after the election. "If Trump loses he loses." Otherwise, it sounds like you're painting him and anyone else who cares about election integrity with the same brush as the rioters. Hmm, does that type of broad brush painting in relation to rioters sound familiar?

Election fraud always happens, in every election. What Trumpers don't get is that Trump's idiocy has made it less likely that the election processes will be looked into in a meaningful way.

#25 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-01-09 06:58 PM | Reply

Election fraud doesn't happen in every election in any significant way. It is insignificant. Utterly and completely insignificant in any U.S. election.

Here's the total of all the voter fraud in PA;
www.forbes.com - all Republicans.

#26 | Posted by YAV at 2021-01-09 07:25 PM | Reply

"Election fraud doesn't happen in every election in any significant way. It is insignificant.

The same can be said about foreign election interference. At least I'm consistent about this. I acknowledge that people can have legitimate concerns about both of those, but I don't believe there's evidence that either one has changed the outcome of a US Presidential election in my lifetime.

In fact, the only election I have even slight doubts about is 2004.

"Utterly and completely insignificant in any U.S. election."

Don't you think you've fallen into a trap here by making hyperbolic statements that are on the opposite extreme of what the Trumpers have?

People can legitimately care about election fraud, just like people can legitimately care about election interference, or social justice, or so on... and those issues are significant to them. Just because some people act like violent scum, or even idiots in general, doesn't mean everyone else who cares about the same issue to any extent deserves to be painted with the same brush.

#27 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-01-09 08:02 PM | Reply

#27

Boils down to "There were good people on both sides."

No there were not.

No good people stormed the Capitol.
And no good people were on the side of the people storming the
Capitol.

A handful of Republican representatives were among them. None of them are good people.

A handful of Senators encouraged them. None of them are good people.

Our President has been gunning them up for months. Our President is not a good person.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-01-09 08:19 PM | Reply

gunning = ginning

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-01-09 08:19 PM | Reply

"Boils down to "There were good people on both sides.""

Yawn, Snoofy. You're just being a passive-aggressive little contrarian. I think you actually agree with what I wrote, because you're not as dumb as you pretend to be on here.

#30 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-01-09 08:53 PM | Reply

Let's say I'm a passive-aggressive little contrarian.

In that case, I'm a passive-aggressive little contrarian who is telling the truth.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-01-09 09:13 PM | Reply

If he'll vote for impeachment, he can gain a sliver of respect.

#32 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2021-01-09 09:15 PM | Reply

Can you cite where he's made claims that there was sufficient election fraud to change the outcome of the election?

That's not what I said.

Here's the actual column.

www.wsj.com

From the WSJ column:

The concerns about election integrity are real, and they must be heard. The merits of these objections are real and substantive. There have been countless examples of states engaging in irresponsible and unverifiable election practices, casting doubt on election outcomes. Whether it is unverified signatures on mail-in ballots or lax voter-ID laws, a refusal to update registration rolls or a refusal to allow partisan observers to witness counting, there are many practices that must be changed.

The 2020 election was considered one of the most secure, accurate elections by people running it at both federal and state level. It's bulls&^% to claim that the concerns are founded.

#33 | Posted by jpw at 2021-01-09 09:47 PM | Reply

Don't you think you've fallen into a trap here by making hyperbolic statements that are on the opposite extreme of what the Trumpers have?

Absolutely not. I have evidence and studies proving what I said. There is ZERO hyperbole in what I posted. I'm not on any "opposite extreme." I'm am 100% factual.

You've made an extraordinary claim - so back it up. You will fail miserably. I can site studies again as I have in the past if you need it, but honestly anyone that thinks what I said is exaggerated in any way, to any degree, is f**king clueless and uneducable. That person has decided what they want their 'reality' to be and there's no reaching them.

#34 | Posted by YAV at 2021-01-09 11:09 PM | Reply

Thanks for handling that load of BS with your response in #33, JPW.

The enemies of our Constitutional Republic the past 5 years has been Trump, his administration, and every single Republican that has supported Trump in any way, shape or form. They have propagated lie after lie about our elections and damaged our institutions. The right-wing media has been complicit. And now even when the brainwashed that followed them are told the truth, they reject it out of hand. They turn and attack.

#35 | Posted by YAV at 2021-01-09 11:14 PM | Reply

"You've made an extraordinary claim"

Only in your mind, JayPee. You and several others seem to be convinced that I've made claims or statements that I never have. I don't know what to do about that, especially when you use your delusions to try to justify being abusive.

[Cue you or one of the others accusing me of "playing the victim card" for simply pointing out a fact. I'm not really bothered personally by your behavior, I just find I really tedious and boring. I could ignore it, or I could hit back, or I could try to convince you you're being unreasonable, but no matter what it seems like you're just gonna continue to go round and round in the same circle.]

#36 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-01-10 12:35 AM | Reply

"You've made an extraordinary claim"

Only in your mind, JayPee. You and several others seem to be convinced that I've made claims or statements that I never have. I don't know what to do about that, especially when you use your delusions to try to justify being abusive.

[Cue you or one of the others accusing me of "playing the victim card" for simply pointing out a fact. I'm not really bothered personally by your behavior, I just find it really tedious and boring. I could ignore it, or I could hit back, or I could try to convince you you're being unreasonable, but no matter what it seems like you're just gonna continue to go round and round in the same circle.]

#37 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-01-10 12:37 AM | Reply

Except Yav said that.

Try knowing who said something before going off on a rant.

#38 | Posted by jpw at 2021-01-10 12:40 AM | Reply

Ah well, you're starting to meld together. Careful when you high-five each other when calling out this "f**king clueless and uneducable" person, lest you slip and merge "all the way".

#39 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-01-10 12:54 AM | Reply

Wasn't me either.

#40 | Posted by jpw at 2021-01-10 01:21 AM | Reply

"you use your delusions to try to justify being abusive."

"abusive"

Always the victim.

Also, notice how earlier, when your delusion was that the election was stolen, it explained storming the Capitol.

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-01-10 02:10 AM | Reply

Enter the subterranean realm via your chair falling through the floor, my cycloptic fiend.

#42 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-01-10 02:37 AM | Reply

Only in your mind, JayPee. You and several others seem to be convinced that I've made claims or statements...

Since that sounds like it/part of it/all of it is actually addressed to me, and not JPW, let me lay it out:

You (Sentinel said): Don't you think you've fallen into a trap here by making hyperbolic statements that are on the opposite extreme of what the Trumpers have?

I said "no."

What are those "hyperbolic statements that are on the opposite extreme" that I supposedly said?
What I said was about election fraud being "Utterly and completely insignificant in any U.S. election."

What did I say in response to your response about it being "hyperbolic statements that are on the opposite extreme"?
I said "You've made an extraordinary claim - so back it up."

You said I made hyperbolic and extreme statements. I can site study after study proving my contention. You have called my position, based in fact, hyperbolic and extreme.

I said "back it up" and you came back with "I didn't say that!"

So I take it you now know you can't back it up and that you did indeed make the above claims and statements.
It's all in the posts above and in this thread.

#43 | Posted by YAV at 2021-01-10 09:07 AM | Reply

I think sentinel was drunk retorting last night lol

#44 | Posted by jpw at 2021-01-10 12:46 PM | Reply

Apologies to JPW if what I wrote earlier didn't apply to you recently. I've been getting nonsensical crap from all sides since I came back (which I fully expected cuz that's how this place rolls, right? LOL), and I was tired last night. That "rant" as you called it is applicable to many situations I've encountered here, so don't be surprised if I decide to use it as boilerplate for future use.

Yav:

"You've made an extraordinary claim"

No I didn't. I said "Election fraud always happens, in every election." and you tried to twist that into something more extraordinary than it was, ignoring the context where it was clear I was arguing against Trumpers who act as if the so-called evidence they find was unique to the most recent election or decisive in determining the outcome. As a friend of mine once said, election fraud is like finding insects in processed food - it's impossible to eliminate completely.

"You said I made hyperbolic and extreme statements"

In the context of what you were actually responding to, as opposed to the strawman you were reacting to, you did. I would suggest you go back and read the last paragraph I wrote in #27, but it seems you're in full bloody-minded mode right now, if not most of the time.

To expand on the metaphor alluded to above, you're not going to calm people who have anxiety about bugs in their food by denying that there are ever any significant amount of bugs in American food, nor will you achieve anything constructive by mocking their anxieties.

#45 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-01-10 01:00 PM | Reply

No I didn't. I said "Election fraud always happens, in every election."

And all I said was "Election fraud doesn't happen in every election in any significant way."

And you got bent and called that hyperbole and an extreme position the polar opposite of the position of Trumpers which is this election was systemically stolen and Trump won in a landslide. The post is #34.

You have some strange need to make my statement of the obvious, and something you nearly said yourself, some weird-ass opposite extreme position. It isn't.

And you can't back up your contention that election fraud "always happens in every election."

It's that simple.

#46 | Posted by YAV at 2021-01-10 01:33 PM | Reply

Sentinel - talk about timing! Check out this:
Heritage Foundation: Massive Evidence of Voter Fraud
drudge.com
And if you dig into it, try not to laugh your ass off on how they've tried to stretch the data into something "significant."

Heritage is including fraud for voter registration, for petition signing for referendum, and more in their "Election fraud" headline even though it isn't. They also counted each person's conviction in a group effort so the number would be higher.

Why mislead so much? Because the numbers are in the dirt, and there'd be no story for the rubes that read the garbage they put out if they were honest.

I have to admit that reading through the list some of these are really weird, head scratching, and amusing.

It's funny. Heritage says the reason for this database is "Americans deserve to have an electoral process that they can trust and that protects their most sacred right, and they have the right to know when the integrity of that process is imperiled."

What they don't get is they just proved we have an electoral process that American can trust and be confident that it does protest their most sacred right. Good job guys!

#47 | Posted by YAV at 2021-01-10 01:53 PM | Reply

"And you can't back up your contention that election fraud "always happens in every election."

This is the hill you want to die on? Okay. Keep implying that for any one of the US Presidential elections you or anyone omnisciently know for that fact there was no election fraud. Keep ignoring the context of my words. Keep being bloody-minded and shooting yourself in the foot. Frankly, I don't care.

Since nobody on this Earth is really omniscient, all we can talk about is probabilities. Would it make you feel better if I said there's an extremely high probability that fraud occurs in every Presidential election, and that there's an extremely low probability that it had any effect on the outcome of the 2020 election. based on what we know?

My view is that people can have legitimate concerns about election fraud, just like people can have legitimate concerns about election interference, and that the self-serving behavior of Trump and his supporters have undermined the possibility of any serious attempt to address those concerns for the foreseeable future.

#48 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-01-10 02:37 PM | Reply

Die on? You made the claim. You can't back it. Now you're saying "any one of the US Presidential elections" - and saying there might have been fraud at some level.

My view is that the system we have works and works extremely well, and I proved it with my link and I've proved it before with the link to the Brennan Center's seminal report The Truth About Voter Fraud which I will again link here: www.brennancenter.org

There is, for all practical purposes, no fraud, at least no practical fraud at all. There aren't any legitimate concerns about election fraud that the general population shouild have or politicians should be exploiting. Politicians and others just exploit the fear people have about election fraud being something to worry about. That's why people put together studies and did research - one side, Heritage, to prove it exists, and one, the Brennan Center, to find out if it really exists and what the impact of it is. What did they find out?

It is ridiculously low to the point of practically being non-existent.

#49 | Posted by YAV at 2021-01-10 02:49 PM | Reply

BTW - I've now linked to two studies, one from a right-wing group I consider loons, and other from a rigorous and well respected source. You have linked to nothing. You have only made conjecture and offered speculation based on what you feel.

Are you glad you're back yet? :)

#50 | Posted by YAV at 2021-01-10 02:51 PM | Reply

police must learn to detain and/or arrest INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE!!!
instead of f'in standing there, not enforcing blatant active VIOLATIONS of the First Amendment.

#51 | Posted by ichiro at 2021-01-10 02:57 PM | Reply

WTG, Yav.

www.youtube.com

#52 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-01-10 03:23 PM | Reply

"Are you glad you're back yet? :)"

Never felt more powerful. :)

#53 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-01-10 03:23 PM | Reply

Never felt more powerful. :)

#53 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

What is: Something said by someone who never had more responsibility than a paper route.

Thank you for the self-retort.

#54 | Posted by bocaink at 2021-01-10 04:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#52 - Finally. You LINKED to something.

#55 | Posted by YAV at 2021-01-10 04:48 PM | Reply

#54 | POSTED BY BOCAINK AT 2021-01-10 04:04 PM | FLAG: said by someone who probably never understood how much responsibility a paper route entails

#56 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-01-10 09:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

When the Capitol was attacked the President stood down. Donald can not afford to leave office. If an enemy attacks, will he stand down?

#57 | Posted by iloveyou at 2021-01-10 11:27 PM | Reply

Re #54 | POSTED BY BOCAINK AT 2021-01-10 04:04 PM | FLAG: said by someone who probably never understood how much responsibility a paper route entails

#56 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

I ran a paper route and subbed on delivering the Washington Post for my brother when I was 10.

#58 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-01-11 02:21 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort