2 hours ago, Xavnel said:

That article was from January, just barely after the election,  here is one from July 
https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/new-report-exposes-thousands-illegal-votes-2016-election

The Government Accountability Institute was able to obtain voter registration and voter history data from only 21 states
(wonder what states would not share any information?.... could it possible be some that do not require ID?)

The probability of 45,000 illegal duplicate votes is the low end of the spectrum, and it does not even account for other types of fraud such as ineligible voting by noncitizens and felons and absentee ballot fraud.
 

The Institute also found more than 15,000 voters registered at prohibited addresses “such as post office boxes, UPS stores, federal post offices, and public buildings.” In some cases, more than 100 voters “were registered to the same UPS store locations.”

They also found voters whose registered addresses were “gas stations, vacant lots, abandoned mill buildings, basketball courts, parks, warehouses, and office buildings.”

The Institute found 45,880 votes cast by individuals whose dates of birth were more than 115 years before the election.

All of this is just the latest evidence that we have serious, substantive problems in our voter registration system across the country and that voter fraud is, without a doubt, real.

 

 

You are quoting a piece from a hyper-right wing source. And one written by a rather controversial author, especially with regard to the issue above.

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/heritage-foundation/

 

The Fall of the Heritage Foundation and the Death of Republican Ideas

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/the-fall-of-the-heritage-foundation-and-the-death-of-republican-ideas/279955/

 

Hans von Spakovsky

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Spakovsky

 

Trump’s pick to investigate voter fraud is freaking out voting rights activists

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/06/30/trumps-pick-to-investigate-voter-fraud-is-freaking-out-voting-rights-activists/

 

3 hours ago, Xavnel said:

2016 US Presidential Election Map By County & Vote Share

Looks to me like a lot more Red all over. 
Also, if you remove the Illegal Votes, then Trump would have also won the Popular Vote.

 

 

Looks like you do not understand what the map shows.

3 hours ago, AgMech Cowboy said:

Nothing like the Steele dossier to throw this statement in the trash. How many millions did Mueller and his hit team spend trying to prove the collusion hoax, etc.

 

The Mueller Investigation was not a 'hit team', other than in Trump supporters' alternative facts narrative.

The financial income through punishment meted to charged persons during the investigation far outweighed the expanses.

As far as I'm aware 'collusion' was a handy political label used by both sides, but was not a legal goal of the investigation. 

Hoax, though? Guess you missed people arrested, charged, incarcerated.

 

3 hours ago, riclag said:

 She obviously didn't get  to her position in life by her looks!

Her parents I think  were cuban exiles ! 

The other thing I like about her, is her possible stance against socilism/communism!

Politically its a better choice imop

 

 

The problem is this - your posts on these topic do not indicate that you do not really have a clear idea of what Communism or Socialism are. Quite often your posts label people and policies as either (plus other dubious labels), and then refrain from substantiating or supporting such claims.

3 hours ago, Xavnel said:

No,  you are absolutely incorrect. 
The reason a SCOTUS ....  MUST ....  be nominated is because of the Democrats plan to drag out the election, contest every place they can to delay.  The Democrats have hired 703 Lawyers to prepare for exactly that.  They are hoping to create confusion and delay the election.  When this happens, it will go to the Supreme Court,  and if the Judges are locked at 4 - 4 ,  then Nancy Pelosi becomes President and then she can move her people into place  to "find" the vote counts Biden needs to win.   THIS is the Democrats' plan for the election.  They KNOW JOe Biden cannot beat Trump straight up,  so they must play dirty and cheat to win, then cover it up.

 

So far, it is the President himself who refused to commit accepting elections results (both in 2016 and the same again this time around). Also, it is the President who advised supporters to vote twice - being both illegal and making a potential mess of the voting process. That's ignoring his efforts to hamstring the Postal Service.

 

 

4 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Good point. Why would anyone think that Biden Harris could unite the country any better? Given their propensity for supporting and encouraging those instigating and carrying out some of the civil unrest? They seem to be dividing the country just as much as Trump. 

 

If Biden Harris are elected, the conservative right just might decide to accept it as well as the radical left accepted Tump.

 

Just when the world needs a strong, united leader!

 

Neither Biden nor Harris supported the violence on the streets. Supporting people's constitutional right to protest is a non-issue, except perhaps for Trump supporters. Once again, trying to insinuate stuff rather than discussing things seriously.

 

Trump already proved he's a divisive President. I doubt that even you could argue otherwise. Like  it or not, Biden does not generate anywhere near as much antagonism. And he's got a better track record when it comes to bi-partisan politics and legislation.

 

I don't think that Biden being elected would induce a dramatic change in the divide - but it will give some hope things could improve. Trump, on the other hand, is not going to do anything for that.

 

12 hours ago, Tug said:

I doubt he has the sielf discipline to hold off till Saturday he will need a distraction before then or just want to troll heck he’s allread calling Ruth’s kid a liar the dude is an absolute cad .noodle that’s trumps stock and trade smear innuendo lie it’s all he’s got but I’m sure you are correct in assuming the democrats will object 

You were on a first name basis with Justice Ginsburg?

 

Didn't know we have such high caliber of people here on TV.

3 hours ago, polpott said:

Any links to this nonsense?

 

If no new SCOTUS were elected, The Supreme Court would not be locked at 4-4 it would be, as it is at present, 5-3 in favour of the Republicans. Biden has a 12 point lead. Stop your rhetorical deflection based on zero facts, Trump is dumped.

Biden has no lead. These polls are nonsense.

POTUS has every right legally, constitutionally and by precedent and Dems would do exactly the same.

56 minutes ago, FlyingThai said:

Biden has no lead. These polls are nonsense.

 

If  you say so, it must be true. The fact is that Trump did not win a majority in 2016, and the Republicans were defeated in the 2018 elections. Now, you could claim neither were predicted by polls, but you'd be wrong.

 

Trump might win despite Biden's lead. It doesn't mean that the lead isn't there.

1 hour ago, FlyingThai said:

Biden has no lead. These polls are nonsense.

If Biden has no lead, why then is Trump saying that the election is rigged. Perhaps he realize the polls are accurate. 

1 hour ago, FlyingThai said:

Biden has no lead. These polls are nonsense.

You wish.

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

The problem is this - your posts on these topic do not indicate that you do not really have a clear idea of what Communism or Socialism are. Quite often your posts label people and policies as either (plus other dubious labels), and then refrain from substantiating or supporting such claims.

It makes me laugh when these right wing yahoos come out with the McCarthyist "reds under the beds" yet continue to support a man who is in bed with Putin, the former head of the KGB.

 

 

Edited September 22, 20205 yr by polpott

29 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

If Biden has no lead, why then is Trump saying that the election is rigged. Perhaps he realize the polls are accurate. 

To be honest Eric i think he has a lead amongst those that are willing to SAY. Most Trump voters are too scared of the backlash. I do believe, however, that Biden may well take it due to Covid and his being kept out of the way, not taking questions etc. I think Biden had no chance prior to Covid. It will be very interesting and Im staying up all night to watch it.

12 hours ago, Tug said:

Ahhhh nooo I listened ,to a normal person what trump said is impossible to deny he is what he is 

Tug

 

Put up or shut up.  If you have evidence that Trump said that, then post it.  Otherwise what you are touting is nothing more than your dislike for the man.  It is fine to dislike Trump but outright fabrications and falsehoods is something that no one should do to another person.  That is slander. 

5 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Tug

 

Put up or shut up.  If you have evidence that Trump said that, then post it.  Otherwise what you are touting is nothing more than your dislike for the man.  It is fine to dislike Trump but outright fabrications and falsehoods is something that no one should do to another person.  That is slander. 

 

You, and other Trump supporters, do not seem as outraged about such things when the President does them (and rather often, at that).

13 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

To be honest Eric i think he has a lead amongst those that are willing to SAY. Most Trump voters are too scared of the backlash. I do believe, however, that Biden may well take it due to Covid and his being kept out of the way, not taking questions etc. I think Biden had no chance prior to Covid. It will be very interesting and Im staying up all night to watch it.

 

What 'backlash'?

 

Even if the lead is smaller than advertised (and I think that's a fair assessment), it's still there. Trump did win the most votes in 2016 - and that was when he was a relatively unknown quality, and while running vs. a more controversial candidate. Following that, Republicans failed in the 2018 elections. These ought to give some clue as to how things stand.

 

 

 

 

Any Americans who actually support Trump and his republican hypocrites liars and pimps are responsible for what the US is close to becoming ! Divided and irreparable! If the crook in WH isconfident about winning why doesnt he wait until he wins ?

13 hours ago, Tug said:

to a normal person

 

Perhaps  that's  an assumption  error from the get go?

10 hours ago, polpott said:

he obviously hadn't taken into account the naivety and stupidity of the voting public.

 

I still find it hard to believe the US has as many naive and stupid people as it obviously does.

 

6 hours ago, polpott said:

Yes in 2016 the senate vetoed Obama's choice for SCOTUS for exactly that reason even though it was much further from the election than at present. The senate then laid down a convention that it would not be allowed to happen again prior to future elections.

 

The irony is that it was Mitch McConnell who laid down the convention, the very person that is now pushing hardest for that convention to be broken.

I think you will find that in 2016 when judge scalia died and Obama wanted to place his pick on the SC, 

Obviously the white House under Obama was held by Democrats. 

The Senate was held by republicans, seems to me that the republicans blocked the appointment.

Ironically in 2016 both Obama and Biden contended and argued that constitutionally the president Should be allowed to fill the vacancy on the SC. 

Trump is merely doing his job efficiently and filling a vacancy as he is constitutionally required to do.

Hope that helps. 

 

 

1 hour ago, pixelaoffy said:

Any Americans who actually support Trump and his republican hypocrites liars and pimps are responsible for what the US is close to becoming ! Divided and irreparable! If the crook in WH isconfident about winning why doesnt he wait until he wins ?

Why should he wait lol ! Decade upon decade with Millions and millions of people before him continuously gave the office of the POTUS the right to act in accordance with the  law of the constitution ! 

To nominate a successor to be SCJ during his term!

 

"Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Appointments Clause, empowers the president to nominate and, with the confirmation (advice and consent) of the United States Senate, to appoint public officials, including justices of the Supreme Court".

Edited September 22, 20205 yr by riclag

Off-topic, troll posts and those from unapproved sources have been removed. 

 

 

5 hours ago, Thomas J said:

Tug

 

Put up or shut up.  If you have evidence that Trump said that, then post it.  Otherwise what you are touting is nothing more than your dislike for the man.  It is fine to dislike Trump but outright fabrications and falsehoods is something that no one should do to another person.  That is slander. 

 

One of the richer ironies of life is the fake new spewers are usually the most ardent seekers of "evidence,"  the slanderer decries slandering and the con man most likely the one who should forewarn impending fraud: "The only way we can lose this election is if it is rigged."

17 hours ago, Sujo said:

Fact check

 

Daughter says what her dying words were.

Trump says schumer, shiff, pelosi made it up.

 

trump is calling the daughter a liar.

I'm highly skeptical that the woman is laying on her deathbed surrounded by family and her last thoughts are about presidential appointments. It does help the media narrative though

24 minutes ago, nattaya09 said:

18 hours ago, Sujo said:

Fact check

 

Daughter says what her dying words were.

Trump says schumer, shiff, pelosi made it up.

 

trump is calling the daughter a liar.

I'm highly skeptical that the woman is laying on her deathbed surrounded by family and her last thoughts are about presidential appointments. It does help the media narrative though

Yeah, highly unlikely isn't it?

Same with "I don't get it - what was in it for them?" to the father of a dead serviceman.
 

7 hours ago, Smigel said:

Trump is merely doing his job efficiently and filling a vacancy as he is constitutionally required to do.

Do you expect anyone to believe that nonsense? Really? The constitution says nothing about filling it with indecent haste, which it normally isn't. You've really got it bad.

Sometimes I think Trump was born under a lucky star.

Winning by a few votes in the key states.

Inheriting a good and growing economy from Obama. You could argue his tax cuts for the rich, and ridding of some regulations, helped but the already growing economy was to his advantage and his tax policy has probably just lead to higher debt. 

The way he seems to be able to avoid getting in serious trouble while those around him fall by the wayside.

And now when the country is mainly focused on his poor efforts on Coronavirus this Supreme court thing falls into his lap.

I can't see him winning still but who knows what's next. I just hope this issue energises democrats more than republicans.

Edited September 22, 20205 yr by Fat is a type of crazy

23 hours ago, Puchaiyank said:

RBG own words...when Clinton and Obama were President...paraphrasing " it is the sitting President's constitutional duty to fill a vacancy ASAP...

 

Elections have consequences...you had your turn for 8 years...now go out there and show your disdain for this President,  the Constitution,  and America...riot, loot, and burn...your side is good at that...

What's it like supporting a president that literally hates you?  His exact words were that he thinks his supporters are "disgusting".  And if you were ever in the military he also thinks you are a "loser" and a "sucker".

Edited September 22, 20205 yr by shdmn