placeholder

He's just acting like a candidate without actually being one?

Even though history shows that there is a strong correlation between how a party fares in local elections and how it will fare in the parliamentary elections, after the drubbing the Tories suffered in local elections Conservative supporters here simply denied that such a correlation exists.

He isn't officially running for President.

Another Johnson supporter in possession of a time machine.

I don't know if anyone has read about what Johnson's classics teacher at Eton wrote about him in a letter to Johnson's father. Here's an excerpt "Boris really has adopted a disgracefully cavalier attitude to his classical studies. "[He] sometimes seems affronted when criticised for what amounts to a gross failure of responsibility (and surprised at the same time that he was not appointed Captain of the school for the next half). "I think he honestly believes that it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation that binds everyone else." https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1549804/Boris-Johnson-news-letter-teacher-Eton-party-Martin-Hammond The child is the father to the man.

And you really need to start proving that there's some reasoning behind what you post here.

Actually it is about that .Overturning results.. But I don't expect you to actually read the article. Not much I can do about someone like you who says black is white or up is down.

Yoy have evidence that a majority of Democrats or anything close to that believed that the vote count was fraudulent in 2016? That Democratic Senators and House members voted against the certification of election results in 2016? Stop with your baseless, empty taunts. You've got nothing.

This is the weirdest attempt at evasion that I have seen on these pages. You cited evidence which turns out to be concerns about elections being stolen by nefarious parties who won't accept the results at the ballot box. In other words, Trump and his fellow travelers.

After all his frenetic attemps to stop Biden from assuming office had failed, he conceded that Biden would assume the office of the Presidency. He didn't concede that Biden had actually won the election. And he hasn't done to this day.

But Democratic prospects in the Senate are looking better. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/senate/

Did you read this paragraph from the article "And about half of Americans, 48%, say they think it is at least somewhat likely that in the next few years, some elected officials will successfully overturn the results of a US election because their party did not win." How about this one? "Some worried that not everyone who should be able to vote actually could. LaRee Smith, a health care worker in Washington state said in an email to CNN, “[M]y biggest concern is not for myself but for voters in states (particularly in the South) where conservatives appear to be ramping up voter suppression and intimidation for citizens in lower socioeconomic classes.” It looks to me like you just shot yourself in the foot.

For some reason you define "somewhat confident" as agreeing with you. By your same ridiculous way of classifying opinion, it could just as validly be said that the not so confident disagree with you. Which would put the total of those disagreeing with you at 86%. Of course, it wouldn't be valid any more than your way of parsing the numbers. Give it up.

Really, here are the results of that survey: Nice cherry picking of one number. The totals sum it up best.

You might ask yourself why you keep repeating those falsehoods of your about 80%. Maybe you're a fan of Lewis Carroll's Hunting of the Snark in which it is asserted that if something is said 3 times it is true? I got news for you. That's a nonsense poem. But at least that nonsense is entertaining. Yours is just sad.

You're not even much of an observer of the American scene. There's been a huge amount of news recently about the fake electors.

I should have written that Mueller believed he had strong evidence against Trump for 10 counts of obstruction of justice, not witness tampering.

You mean because he failed, that means it can't be a crime? Do you understand that false electors were created. That they submitted fake documents to Republicans in Congress from 5 states?

For one thing, the Republican Senate Committee that investigated the issue believes that there is reason to. believe that Paul Manafort passed confidential Trump campaign into to Constanite Klimnik a Russian intelligence operative. They had other doubts as well. For another, the notion that Mueller found nothing takes no account of the fact the Mueller had strong evidence that Trump had engaged in witness tampering. Trump pointedly didn't rule out pardoning Manafort and in fact he ultimately did.

Where have you been lately? Donald Trump tried to pressure Mike Pence into disqualifying the vote count. An attempt that was clearly unsupported by the law. He also supported a conspiracy to replace legitimate electors with self-declared electors for Trump. So, is it suddenly undemocratic to try to overturn the results of an election by illegitimate and possibly illegal means? Or has it always been undemocratic?

Do you understand that the quote you cited actually runs exactly opposite to what you think it means?

It was predicted in advance for that shift to happen for the simple reason of a phenomenon called blue shift and red shift. It reflected the fact that Democrats were far more likely to use mail-in ballots than were Republicans, thanks in no small part to Trump inveighing against mail-in ballots. So in Pennsylvania where mail in ballots don't begin to be counted until the polls are closed, the vote started out red but as more and more mail-in ballots were counted turned blue. It should be noted that the Democrats in the state legislature pushed for mail-in ballots to be counted ahead. The Republicans quashed that. I'm sure they had a good reason for that and that it had nothing to do with a desire to sow confusion and doubt. In Iowa on the other hand mail-in ballots were counted ahead. So the Democrats started out with the lead but as the night went on the vote turned red. A red shift. As for Americans mistrusting voting...when one major political party keeps on repeating falsehoods over and over again, it can change public opinion. The technique is called the big lie. The fact that even in states where the governor and the official who controls elections are Republican. as well as the legislature, found no fraud is apparently a truth harder to digest.

Republicans have moved further to the right than Democrats have to the left Both parties have moved further away from the ideological center since the early 1970s. Democrats on average have become somewhat more liberal, while Republicans on average have become much more conservative. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/10/the-polarization-in-todays-congress-has-roots-that-go-back-decades/

Whereas citing the failures of the Capitol Police isn't?

Below is a definition of socialism. Give us some names of big time socialists who subscribe to this doctrine. What Is Socialism? Socialism is a populist economic and political system based on collective, common, or public ownership of the means of production. Those means of production include the machinery, tools, and factories used to produce goods that aim to directly satisfy human needs. In contrast to capitalism, whereby business owners control the means of production and pay wages to workers to use those means, socialism envisions shared ownership and control among the laboring class. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/socialism.asp