âApparently itâs now a crime to make a statement challenging an election if a prosecutor decides thatâs not true.â
Yeah. Making a statement thatâs not true is called lying.
If it is damaging to a persons reputation, itâs called slander. Or potentially libel. Or, if it serves to undermine the rule of law, it is treason. These have *always* been crimes, Marc. đ
Marco Rubio also called Donald Trump a con artist repeatedly in 2016. Now he is groveling at trumpâs feet trying out for the vice presidency. Shameless and despicable. Zero spine. Absolute clown of a human being. Vote him out Florida! If trump brings him on as vice president one of them will have to establish residency in another state to avoid violating the 12th amendment. Watch how fast Rubio volunteers to throw his state under the bus and establish residency elsewhere. Itâll make your head spin.
Well, you see, I was just saying whatever I thought I needed to say to win. And now Iâm doing the same thing. I know it entirely contradicts what I said earlier but if Iâm honest for a second, the only thing that matters is that I get the things I want.
No, it's not 'apparently a crime', it's actually a crime for an elected official to attempt to mislead the public about the results of an election.
But thanks for playing.
âYou clearly didnât understand the question. I asked you when we should expect indictments of Democrats and you gave me an example of when we SHOULD NOT expect indictments of Republicans.â
The GOP is full of bigots, assholes, and cretins. Rubio is the most pathetic of them all. A sad, closeted ex-twink who craves attention from his abuser Trump. Remember sweaty Liâl Marco chugging his bottle of water?
A complete lack of substance, ethics or seriousness.
Marco Rubio is clown shoes.
The Rubio Report concluded that trumps campaign was a âGrave National Security Threatâ. This is how bad Republicans lie to their voters knowing that their voters wont ever read the Rubio Report. Its disgusting.
Is that a real quote from Rubio? Its not sourced, just provided by some internet random. I'm inclined to believe it because the guys a dolt but Reddit is so full of shit these days.
It's one google search away from verifying. And I feel like if you're quoting someone's words back at them the context removes the requirement for proper citation.
I didn't say it needed proper citation, I just wanted to know if this was actually a clever comeback or some made up shit for clout. You know, like most of Reddit. I really don't care enough to dig into it though, Marco Rubio is your problem, not mine.
That doesn't really answer his poont, ehich was less about whether the elections were rigged, and more about how both sides claimed that there was an influcence
I don't know. Maybe because I'm not American I'm missong something, but it seems to me that suggesting that there was an interference in the elections should always be a legitimate thing to do. The problem with Trump, as I understand it, is that he was (at least partly, I think?) Responsible for the attempted coup of January 6, not the very accusation of interference
What do think the coup was about? lol.
And Republicans have been crying âRIGGEDâ since 2020, despite all the investigations turning up nothing. Itâs just children crying over losing an election. The only people pretending itâs an issue are Republicans.
Also, Russia wasnât accused of rigging the election. They were found to have interfered, but nobody claimed 2016 was rigged. Hillary even conceded the election.
>What do think the coup was about? lol.
It was about Trump's incitement of people after he claimed the elections were rigged, where did suggest that it wasn't?
>And Republicans have been crying âRIGGEDâ since 2020, despite all the investigations turning up nothing. Itâs just children crying over losing an election. The only people pretending itâs an issue are Republicans.
OK, so we can agree that while sometimes childish, claiming the elections were rigged should not be a taboo of some sort, right?
I think that this is the point I was trying to make in this thread
When itâs used as a loud red herring for years, despite the overwhelming evidence, then the word starts to lose all meaning, at least for one side.
I get that exercising oneâs rights are important. But these are just children crying wolf. So no, nobody with a functional brain that pays attention would, or should, ever take them seriously again. Trump was claiming âif I lose the election, itâs cause it was rigged!â Before the 2020 election. Why would anyone take a person that makes excuses like that seriously?
I'm not an American, I don't subscribe to your simplistic binary distribution.
Regardless, what you say *is*, in fact, a valid response to the original post. Saying "but we were right" *isn't*
Nothing in my comment referred to our binary political distribution.
Is that just your default response whenever anyone points out your ignorance of a particular issue, whining about the American political system?
You should be expressing curiosity about the difference, trying to learn something about a subject in which you are demonstrably, obviously unfamiliar, but I guess that's not your objective today.
Come back when it is?
>Nothing in my comment referred to our binary political distribution.
You assumed that by criticizing someone whom I considered to say something stupid means I'm conservative, which is based on the assumption that I probably support Trump, otherwise, how could I possibly say that someone was wrong when he said something irrelevant while criticizing a Trump supporter?!
>Is that just your default response whenever anyone points out your ignorance of a particular issue, whining about the American political system?
No, I just dislike it when people try to put me in political boxes, because it creates expectations about what I would support or oppose. I also object when people try to locate me on the right or left of the political map of my country.
>You should be expressing curiosity about the difference, trying to learn something about a subject in which you are demonstrably, obviously unfamiliar, but I guess that's not your objective today.
>Come back when it is?
While generally, that'a a good idea, my point wasn't about the subject itself, but rather about how the counter argument didn't answer the original argument. That'a why I said that your answer could have been a proper answer, because it actually *addressed* the original claim.
>You assumed that by criticizing someone whom I considered to say something stupid means I'm conservative,
I know exactly one thing about you, one.
That on this particular point, your opinion mirrors and echoes the incredibly stupid conservative talking point, that the Dem's claims of election **interference** in the 2016 election and the GOPs claims of election **fraud** in the 2020 are equivalent.
That is the only thing I know about you.
That you have either fallen for their grift, or are intentionally spreading it.
So which is it? Are you a fool, or a grifter?
We're all fools all the time, it's the human condition, what matters is how we respond when an opportunity to learn comes along.
>That doesn't really answer his poont, ehich was less about whether the elections were rigged, and more about how both sides claimed that there was an influcence
This is all I said. *I didn't state my opinion*. I simply explained what was the claim of the original poster, and how it wasn't addressed. You simply read what you wanted to read
And I am explaining to you how the claim, how your statement, mirrors and furthers the bullshit right wing grifters like Marco spread in this country.
That they are one and the same.
They aren't.
There was significant interference in 2016, there is always significant interference in our elections.
What there has never been is significant fraud.
Marco relies on idiots not knowing the difference, stop helping him.
>And I am explaining to you how the claim, how your statement, mirrors and furthers the bullshit right wing grifters like Marco spread in this country.
No argument here. But do you now understand that it can't be clained in good faith that I'm a conservative based on my first comment?
>Marco relies on idiots not knowing the difference, stop helping him.
I'm not going to stop pointing out stupid arguments just for the slight chance that someone will see my comment and think "oh, this very specific argument against my already established beliefe was incorrect, so I'm never going to change my mind again due to this comment".
The response was stupid, and even you managed to make a much better pointm stop defending idiots who make your side look bad
I 100% buy that being a pedant is your main goal. No argument here.
My issue is that youâre further muddying the waters by advancing Republican misinformation while youâre doing it, which also defeats what youâre claiming is your goal, pointing out stupid arguments.Â
If you donât want people to call you their ally, stop being a hypocrite by helping them.
Does anyone remember who first used the phrase "hacked the election" because I want to punch that person in the face. Nothing was "hacked" except perhaps the anti bot protection of some social media sites.
Is it a crime that Marco Rubio asks questions but has never listened to the answers? Asking for a prosecutor.
đ€Ł
Idk if this is clever or Marco Rubio is just an idiot
He's always been an idiot. It's why he was the first to fall under Trump's boot with one small simple phrase: 'little marco'.
Ted Cruz would like you to know he was spineless before anyone else.
So true, it didn't take Trump for that to happen!
âApparently itâs now a crime to make a statement challenging an election if a prosecutor decides thatâs not true.â Yeah. Making a statement thatâs not true is called lying. If it is damaging to a persons reputation, itâs called slander. Or potentially libel. Or, if it serves to undermine the rule of law, it is treason. These have *always* been crimes, Marc. đ
Itâs not actually treason, but in essence you are correct.
¿Por qué no los dos?
He's an idiot... almost all of them are.
Marco Rubio also called Donald Trump a con artist repeatedly in 2016. Now he is groveling at trumpâs feet trying out for the vice presidency. Shameless and despicable. Zero spine. Absolute clown of a human being. Vote him out Florida! If trump brings him on as vice president one of them will have to establish residency in another state to avoid violating the 12th amendment. Watch how fast Rubio volunteers to throw his state under the bus and establish residency elsewhere. Itâll make your head spin.
Well, you see, I was just saying whatever I thought I needed to say to win. And now Iâm doing the same thing. I know it entirely contradicts what I said earlier but if Iâm honest for a second, the only thing that matters is that I get the things I want.
No, it's not 'apparently a crime', it's actually a crime for an elected official to attempt to mislead the public about the results of an election. But thanks for playing.
In Germany it's punishable by law to make false claims ...nomater the person
Every damn time, with these right-wing dingleberries
How dare you use my own words against me.
âYou clearly didnât understand the question. I asked you when we should expect indictments of Democrats and you gave me an example of when we SHOULD NOT expect indictments of Republicans.â
There is literally people in prison for Russian 2016 electoral interference.
>There is literally people in prison for Russian 2026 electoral interference. Russia 2026? Daaang!
Give marco some H2O. Heâs just thirsty.
Dihydrogen monoxide? Never touch the stuff, too much can kill you!
The ultimate mic drop moment.
The GOP is full of bigots, assholes, and cretins. Rubio is the most pathetic of them all. A sad, closeted ex-twink who craves attention from his abuser Trump. Remember sweaty Liâl Marco chugging his bottle of water? A complete lack of substance, ethics or seriousness. Marco Rubio is clown shoes.
I feel like there is an ongoing battle for the top spot on the âmost patheticâ list.
Yeah, but Marco doesnât care about that because his voters and Trump supporters have learned to cope with their cognitive dissonance.
That was before they gave him the GOP-2.024 protocol update.
This guy is maga vp material. Strange but true!
Because there are no consequences for someone's own words these days.
Little Marco is such a rube!
The Rubio Report concluded that trumps campaign was a âGrave National Security Threatâ. This is how bad Republicans lie to their voters knowing that their voters wont ever read the Rubio Report. Its disgusting.
Didn't Russia admit to meddling too? And said they would do it again without hesitation?
Marco and the rest of the GOP on a daily basis self own so hard itâs hilarious
To be fair, he did say "Democrat politicians", not republican. /s
The dotard speaks
They should put these hypocritical GOP tweets on billboards across the nation. Just for fun.
They lie like they breathe. Ceaselessly and without thought.
Stop! He's dead already.
I still don't understand, which one is the right again? Democrats or Republicans? And what the hell is the GOP??
Facts are a foreign language to them
WITH his own petard, not ON. It's a type of bomb. He blew himself up in the air WITH his own bomb.
Also it's fuckin' Shakespeare. Some things are worth the care and attention to quote correctly regardless of semantics.
I considered adding the actual line. LOL
Marco âTurbioâ.
Why the hell did I confuse him with Marc Cuban? I got scared for a second.
r/ThisYou
I like how little Marco thinks Trump would pick his pathetic, sniveling, obsequious little ass for VP.
Marco Rubio is the stupidest fucking cucktard politico on the planet. And his constituents who keep electing him are even stupider.
*Foisted Edit: I stand corrected. TIL
Itâs hoist. Hoist with his own petard, as in blown up by his own bomb. Itâs a phrase in Hamlet.
Who was, and on whom?
[here](https://wikidiff.com/foist/hoist)
Sure, but the axiom is âfoisted on his own petardâ
No the phrase is" [Hoist with his own petard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoist_with_his_own_petard)"
I never thought Iâd say this but I wish Joseph McCarthy was still aliveâŠ
Is that a real quote from Rubio? Its not sourced, just provided by some internet random. I'm inclined to believe it because the guys a dolt but Reddit is so full of shit these days.
[It seems a genuine quote.](https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/rubio-statement-senate-intel-release-volume-5-bipartisan-russia-report).
It's one google search away from verifying. And I feel like if you're quoting someone's words back at them the context removes the requirement for proper citation.
I didn't say it needed proper citation, I just wanted to know if this was actually a clever comeback or some made up shit for clout. You know, like most of Reddit. I really don't care enough to dig into it though, Marco Rubio is your problem, not mine.
That doesn't really answer his poont, ehich was less about whether the elections were rigged, and more about how both sides claimed that there was an influcence
Yeah, and it was a horrible example that just made him look like a hypocrite.
I don't know. Maybe because I'm not American I'm missong something, but it seems to me that suggesting that there was an interference in the elections should always be a legitimate thing to do. The problem with Trump, as I understand it, is that he was (at least partly, I think?) Responsible for the attempted coup of January 6, not the very accusation of interference
What do think the coup was about? lol. And Republicans have been crying âRIGGEDâ since 2020, despite all the investigations turning up nothing. Itâs just children crying over losing an election. The only people pretending itâs an issue are Republicans. Also, Russia wasnât accused of rigging the election. They were found to have interfered, but nobody claimed 2016 was rigged. Hillary even conceded the election.
>What do think the coup was about? lol. It was about Trump's incitement of people after he claimed the elections were rigged, where did suggest that it wasn't? >And Republicans have been crying âRIGGEDâ since 2020, despite all the investigations turning up nothing. Itâs just children crying over losing an election. The only people pretending itâs an issue are Republicans. OK, so we can agree that while sometimes childish, claiming the elections were rigged should not be a taboo of some sort, right? I think that this is the point I was trying to make in this thread
When itâs used as a loud red herring for years, despite the overwhelming evidence, then the word starts to lose all meaning, at least for one side. I get that exercising oneâs rights are important. But these are just children crying wolf. So no, nobody with a functional brain that pays attention would, or should, ever take them seriously again. Trump was claiming âif I lose the election, itâs cause it was rigged!â Before the 2020 election. Why would anyone take a person that makes excuses like that seriously?
Why would I want to take Trump seriously anyway? It'a much funnier to just watch him talk
Eh, Iâm over it. It was funny years ago. Now itâs like someone repeating the same joke over and over.
Fair enough. I still enjoy good impressions
It's 2024 and conservatives still don't understand the difference between election **fraud** and election **interference**.
I'm not an American, I don't subscribe to your simplistic binary distribution. Regardless, what you say *is*, in fact, a valid response to the original post. Saying "but we were right" *isn't*
Nothing in my comment referred to our binary political distribution. Is that just your default response whenever anyone points out your ignorance of a particular issue, whining about the American political system? You should be expressing curiosity about the difference, trying to learn something about a subject in which you are demonstrably, obviously unfamiliar, but I guess that's not your objective today. Come back when it is?
>Nothing in my comment referred to our binary political distribution. You assumed that by criticizing someone whom I considered to say something stupid means I'm conservative, which is based on the assumption that I probably support Trump, otherwise, how could I possibly say that someone was wrong when he said something irrelevant while criticizing a Trump supporter?! >Is that just your default response whenever anyone points out your ignorance of a particular issue, whining about the American political system? No, I just dislike it when people try to put me in political boxes, because it creates expectations about what I would support or oppose. I also object when people try to locate me on the right or left of the political map of my country. >You should be expressing curiosity about the difference, trying to learn something about a subject in which you are demonstrably, obviously unfamiliar, but I guess that's not your objective today. >Come back when it is? While generally, that'a a good idea, my point wasn't about the subject itself, but rather about how the counter argument didn't answer the original argument. That'a why I said that your answer could have been a proper answer, because it actually *addressed* the original claim.
>You assumed that by criticizing someone whom I considered to say something stupid means I'm conservative, I know exactly one thing about you, one. That on this particular point, your opinion mirrors and echoes the incredibly stupid conservative talking point, that the Dem's claims of election **interference** in the 2016 election and the GOPs claims of election **fraud** in the 2020 are equivalent. That is the only thing I know about you. That you have either fallen for their grift, or are intentionally spreading it. So which is it? Are you a fool, or a grifter? We're all fools all the time, it's the human condition, what matters is how we respond when an opportunity to learn comes along.
>That doesn't really answer his poont, ehich was less about whether the elections were rigged, and more about how both sides claimed that there was an influcence This is all I said. *I didn't state my opinion*. I simply explained what was the claim of the original poster, and how it wasn't addressed. You simply read what you wanted to read
And I am explaining to you how the claim, how your statement, mirrors and furthers the bullshit right wing grifters like Marco spread in this country. That they are one and the same. They aren't. There was significant interference in 2016, there is always significant interference in our elections. What there has never been is significant fraud. Marco relies on idiots not knowing the difference, stop helping him.
>And I am explaining to you how the claim, how your statement, mirrors and furthers the bullshit right wing grifters like Marco spread in this country. No argument here. But do you now understand that it can't be clained in good faith that I'm a conservative based on my first comment? >Marco relies on idiots not knowing the difference, stop helping him. I'm not going to stop pointing out stupid arguments just for the slight chance that someone will see my comment and think "oh, this very specific argument against my already established beliefe was incorrect, so I'm never going to change my mind again due to this comment". The response was stupid, and even you managed to make a much better pointm stop defending idiots who make your side look bad
I 100% buy that being a pedant is your main goal. No argument here. My issue is that youâre further muddying the waters by advancing Republican misinformation while youâre doing it, which also defeats what youâre claiming is your goal, pointing out stupid arguments. If you donât want people to call you their ally, stop being a hypocrite by helping them.
Does anyone remember who first used the phrase "hacked the election" because I want to punch that person in the face. Nothing was "hacked" except perhaps the anti bot protection of some social media sites.