Jump to content

Biden camp considers legal action over agency's delay in recognizing transition


Recommended Posts

Posted
3 minutes ago, wasabi said:

 

With Bush v Gore it was a single state and only a few hundred votes. The question was not fraud but if the vote had been accurately tallied. Given the counting was even more manual than it is now that was entirely reasonable. Overturning multiple states with margins of hundreds of thousands of votes is not similar at all. Above all where is the evidence other than vague accusations from a proven instigator (Trump)?

Simple would be if it was done by a computer, longer would be if they were absentee mail in ballots that had to be confirmed as not voted in person and ensuring the signature was good.

Posted
2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

". . . relying upon a "payroll vote" of judges who owe their appointment to Trump . . ."

 

Isn't that pure speculation with no evidence to support it and thus a false or misleading statement?

No it is my opinion. Feel free to disagree, or even challenge it. I make no claim to be posting an unchallengable definitive account of the state of affairs.

  • Like 1
Posted

This reminds me of the Democrat Stacy Abrams who recently the race for governor of GA. Even though she lost, she refused to concede and still won't concede., 2 years later. She kept going on about election fraud and almost all of those who wanted her as governor, believed her. She tried fighting it, yet lost. 

 

My take away, for each person it seems to say to me that they are ok when their candidate does it, but not ok when another candidate does it cause they are being childish. 

 

Personally, I think if both sides keep saying this all the time, there might be some truth to it and it should be looked into more; otherwise, it is a tragedy to democracy.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, curlylekan said:

This reminds me of the Democrat Stacy Abrams who recently the race for governor of GA. Even though she lost, she refused to concede and still won't concede., 2 years later. She kept going on about election fraud and almost all of those who wanted her as governor, believed her. She tried fighting it, yet lost. 

 

My take away, for each person it seems to say to me that they are ok when their candidate does it, but not ok when another candidate does it cause they are being childish. 

 

Personally, I think if both sides keep saying this all the time, there might be some truth to it and it should be looked into more; otherwise, it is a tragedy to democracy.

She probably was one of the driving forces for Biden's Georgia win.

  • Like 1
Posted
35 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

Simple would be if it was done by a computer, longer would be if they were absentee mail in ballots that had to be confirmed as not voted in person and ensuring the signature was good.

Maybe it would be simple but it would make it a lot more difficult to detect fraud. Which is why voting systems are actually moving away from that and towards a hybrid system where a paper copy if made of each vote to make sure nothing untoward occurred in the computer system.

Posted
14 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

It seems they never called PA, so it has remained grey the whole time. So according to them there are four states on the wire and Biden has 259. I thought they had called PA earlier. My mistake.

I doubt very much that you happened to independently make this mistake after Giuliani and other posted it. Most likely you fell for misinformation.

  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I doubt very much that you happened to independently make this mistake after Giuliani and other posted it. Most likely you fell for misinformation.

Yes, I am the only one falling for misinformation. You got me.

  • Thanks 1
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Yes, I am the only one falling for misinformation. You got me.

I wish it were the case that in that regard you were unique and not typical.

Edited by placeholder
  • Like 1
Posted
5 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

Even the Republican Secretary of State for GA said there's no significant fraud and there's pretty much no way Trump will win his state.  Sadly, the GOP senators are calling for his dismissal.

 

The GOP's gone nuts.

Yep, they've 'gone' for sure but they 'went' quite some me ago, like 4 years. 

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Voter suppression in the south is a big deal. That was Stacey's complaint. She acknowledged she lost 

I firmly disagree that it is done by only side and in only 1 area of the country. Both sides say it often, so I firmly believe that people from both parties do it.

 

As for Stacy Abrams, no she never conceded. https://news.yahoo.com/why-stacey-abrams-still-wont-concede-194648579.html

  • Sad 1
Posted
1 minute ago, curlylekan said:

I firmly disagree that it is done by only side and in only 1 area of the country. Both sides say it often, so I firmly believe that people from both parties do it.

 

As for Stacy Abrams, no she never conceded. https://news.yahoo.com/why-stacey-abrams-still-wont-concede-194648579.html

Agreed! Time for a change. Both sides are corrupt. But the GOP is the worst at gerrymandering. No denying that. 

Posted
40 minutes ago, placeholder said:

She wasn't going on about fraud. What she was going on about was that Brian Kemp who was running for governor, was also at the time Georgia Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is in charge of elections. Instead of resigning from that post or recusing himself as any reasonably honorable person would have done, he stayed on and struck voters off rolls in a way that benefited himself.

This is semantics. I believe my point is still valid. Both sides seem to love to call the other out as if something way beyond their control is what caused them to lose. None can accept defeat. None accept that maybe people don't want them in office. Stacy Abrams is a stain on GA and needs to eat a salad, before she lectures anyone

  • Sad 3
  • Thanks 1
Posted
2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Can you share with us some of those unequivocal claims? Because some of us here have been shooting fish in a barrel...i.e. claims of unequivocal fraud. So far the courts haven't been real sympathetic to such claims.

Canuk was posing a hypothetical question to make a valid point, not being partisan. 

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, curlylekan said:

I firmly disagree that it is done by only side and in only 1 area of the country. Both sides say it often, so I firmly believe that people from both parties do it.

 

As for Stacy Abrams, no she never conceded. https://news.yahoo.com/why-stacey-abrams-still-wont-concede-194648579.html

From your link ""

And despite acknowledging Kemp as the legal victor, Abrams has refused to officially concede the election.

“Concession in the political space is an acknowledgment that the process was fair,” she told Yahoo News. “And I don't believe that to be so.”

 

So this is down to word games now, or semantics as you said yourself. Btw, conflict if interest, ad is the case with Kemp, is not the same as voter suppression or voter fraud. So that is more than semantics.

And voter suppression is in the interest of Republicans only, so guess who are doing it?

.

Edited by stevenl
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

Abrams' non-concession concession speech could hold a few lessons in it for Donald Trump:

 

Quote

 

I acknowledge that former Secretary of State Brian Kemp will be certified as the victor in the 2018 gubernatorial election.
...
Concession means to acknowledge an action is right, true or proper. As a woman of conscience and faith, I cannot concede. But my assessment is that the law currently allows no further viable remedy.

Now, I could certainly bring a new case to keep this one contest alive, but I don’t want to hold public office if I need to scheme my way into the post. Because the title of Governor isn’t nearly as important as our shared title. Voters.

 

https://qz.com/1468560/read-stacey-abrams-full-concession-speech/

 

  • Like 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, curlylekan said:

This is semantics. I believe my point is still valid. Both sides seem to love to call the other out as if something way beyond their control is what caused them to lose. None can accept defeat. None accept that maybe people don't want them in office. Stacy Abrams is a stain on GA and needs to eat a salad, before she lectures anyone

Sorry no. It's Kemp who was the sleazy party in this case. Once again, he was running for governor and as Sec. of State manipulated the voting roster in a way that benefited him. Any halfway ethical person can see that this stinks.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, stevenl said:

From your link ""

And despite acknowledging Kemp as the legal victor, Abrams has refused to officially concede the election.

“Concession in the political space is an acknowledgment that the process was fair,” she told Yahoo News. “And I don't believe that to be so.”

 

So this is down to word games now, or semantics as you said yourself. Btw, conflict if interest, ad is the case with Kemp, is not the same as voter suppression or voter fraud. So that is more than semantics.

And voter suppression is in the interest of Republicans only, so guess who are doing it?

.

Lost Georgia to Democratic party and Trump pimps can't stomach it ! Hundreds of thousands of black voters turned out to vote for Biden !  Sticks in your gut doesn't it 

  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

Yes, I am the only one falling for misinformation. You got me.

Not at all, there are about 70 million voters in America who have been gulled by flim-flam.

  • Like 2

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...