2 hours ago, Foghorn said:

Need to stop mail in votes and vote in person only

Why?

 

2 hours ago, Foghorn said:

But the most unsafe for voter fraud

 

Where is the proof of that?

 

All the courts where Trump and his toadies went, with the exception of 1 court, 50 of them refused to accept the plea of voter fraud as there was NO EVIDENCE presented.

Raise your hand if you believed that the Republican Party were the strength of fiscal integrity  and supporter's of States Rights. Today we have just retrumpians only

13 republican members of the House, who signed on to the seditious lawsuit, are FROM THE STATES WHERE THEY ARE DEMANDING THE VOTES BE DISMISSED.

 

Obviously these 13 representatives will put their money where their mouths are and step down from the House.

 

No? You mean they are not only seditious, but hypocrites?

3 hours ago, Foghorn said:

But the most unsafe for voter fraud

So how will the members of the armed forces be able to vote, let alone embassy staff and US citizens living and working offshore. How about the USN ships at sea and people working off shore on oil rigs be able to vote.
 

Edited December 11, 20205 yr by onthedarkside
flame comment removed

57 minutes ago, Sujo said:

To top it off biden won time magazine person of the year, beating trump.

 

twitter thumb at the ready.

Now that is really going to p**s Trump off.

 

Watch out for a veritable blizzard of tweets and twitters form Trump to Time magazine saying that he really did win but Time robbed him.

7 hours ago, riclag said:

"Appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College and allow their state legislatures to name the electors " 

 A Democratic Process that I would love to see upheld, to preserve the republic imop!

You're kidding, right? Having state legislatures overturn the will of the people in a given state is the opposite of a democratic process; it is an act of tyranny.

So , as an outsider--what is the main difference between the Democrats  conceding the loss of an election--then taking it back & disputing the vote count in 1 state , taking it to the courts, demanding and getting a recount in that state after the election, with the result then not known until Dec 12 -2000

 

I am not American--I don't get a vote....but as a lot of posters are upset--I'm just asking what was the difference.?

4 hours ago, Foghorn said:

Why are the democrats so scared of investigations into the voting fraud scandal ?  They’ve nothing to hide have they ?

Nobody is "scared" of anything; not sure where you get that idea. The so-called voting fraud scandal has been investigated to pieces for the past several weeks and not a shred of evidence for any fraud has been unearthed.

2 hours ago, pmarlin said:

You just wring and you don't have a clue. You don't have a complaint until you have wronged  parties. where in the hell does 45 supported come from. Millions were harmed and 118 sates  are suing or supporting this on behalf of the citizens of their states..  It was files after the election. It was filed on 7 Dec and put on the docket 8 Dec   Search - Supreme Court of the United States 

Trump is off playing golf and tweeting false claims to keep the dollars rolling in from the credulous. They are being harmed in the wallet, self-inflicted wounds.

If you want to talk about millions being harmed, a considerable proportion of the 6.4 million current coronavirus cases are there because of Trump's lies, misdirection and neglect.

The last time I looked, there were 50 states in the USA, not 118. Perhaps you are like Trump, making absurd statements and treating them as facts.

11 minutes ago, sanuk711 said:

So , as an outsider--what is the main difference between the Democrats  conceding the loss of an election--then taking it back & disputing the vote count in 1 state , taking it to the courts, demanding and getting a recount in that state after the election, with the result then not known until Dec 12 -2000

 

I am not American--I don't get a vote....but as a lot of posters are upset--I'm just asking what was the difference.?

There were only 537 votes separating Bush and Gore in Florida.  The states Trump is contesting are nowhere near that close.  

10 minutes ago, sanuk711 said:

So , as an outsider--what is the main difference between the Democrats  conceding the loss of an election--then taking it back & disputing the vote count in 1 state , taking it to the courts, demanding and getting a recount in that state after the election, with the result then not known until Dec 12 -2000

 

I am not American--I don't get a vote....but as a lot of posters are upset--I'm just asking what was the difference.?

You're confused. It was the green party candidate who questioned the results in 1 state and hot a rrcount.. Even if reversed Trump would still have won. And the President back then didn't try to coerce governors and legislators. And Clinton didn't claim fraud but conceded quite readily. But apart from that and a lot more, not much of a difference.

1 minute ago, cycolista said:

There were only 537 votes separating Bush and Gore in Florida.  The states Trump is contesting are nowhere near that close.

I understand cycolista............but shouldn't any party have the right to dispute....Democrat or Republican ?

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You're confused. It was the green party candidate who questioned the results in 1 state and hot a rrcount.. Even if reversed Trump would still have won. And the President back then didn't try to coerce governors and legislators. And Clinton didn't claim fraud but conceded quite readily. But apart from that and a lot more, not much of a difference.

I think we are talking about different election placeholder------- Clinton wasn't running (Gore)  and according to Wikipeia...the Democrats did take to court.

 

Bush v. Gore, case in which, on December 12, 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed a Florida Supreme Court request for a selective manual recount of that state’s U.S. presidential election ballots. The 5–4 decision effectively awarded Florida’s 25 votes in the electoral college—and thus the election itself—to Republican candidate George W. Bush.https://www.britannica.com/event/Bush-v-Gore

1 minute ago, sanuk711 said:

I think we are talking about different election placeholder------- Clinton wasn't running (Gore)  and according to Wikipeia...the Democrats did take to court.

 

Bush v. Gore, case in which, on December 12, 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed a Florida Supreme Court request for a selective manual recount of that state’s U.S. presidential election ballots. The 5–4 decision effectively awarded Florida’s 25 votes in the electoral college—and thus the election itself—to Republican candidate George W. Bush.https://www.britannica.com/event/Bush-v-Gore

But it wasn't about fake allegations of fraud. It was a defined issue of hanging chads. Neither party disagreed on the facts, just how existing law should be applied.

7 minutes ago, sanuk711 said:

I understand cycolista............but shouldn't any party have the right to dispute....Democrat or Republican ?

They disputed it over 50 times in court and lost.

 

Now they are not disputing it but 1 state doesnt like how another state ran their election. States have no right to contest other states.

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

But it wasn't about fake allegations of fraud. It was a defined issue of hanging chads. Neither party disagreed on the facts, just how existing law should be applied.

I agree---about shards--but the election result was disputed and was taken to court. Of course both parties disagreed, or it wouldn't have gone to court.

Given how the Republicans now play the game (The end justifies the means) I believe that the Democrats must open Congressional  hearings into the Trump administration's blatantly fraudulent attempts to overturn this election. These attempts put the USA at the same level of other, usually less developed,  countries whose elections are actually fraudulent.

 

Bringing the Presidential election process into disrepute, by a sitting President no less, should not happen without consequences. Deterrence is a fundamental part of the law. These hearing could and should be broad enough to encompass sitting members of Congress.

 

All I want for Christmas...

1 minute ago, sanuk711 said:

I agree---about shards--but the election result was disputed and was taken to court. Of course both parties disagreed, or it wouldn't have gone to court.

But there were legitimate grounds for disagreement. In the current situation not. And attorneys, as officers of the court, have an obligation not to clutter up the courts with frivolous lawsuits.

3 minutes ago, sanuk711 said:

I agree---about shards--but the election result was disputed and was taken to court. Of course both parties disagreed, or it wouldn't have gone to court.

It has not gone to court yet. It is only being filed. Most likely the court will throw out the cacophony of bogus false claims. 

9 hours ago, webfact said:

Trump met on Thursday with Paxton and other state attorneys general who support the suit.

I guess Paxton's after a pardon in lieu?

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

It has not gone to court yet. It is only being filed. Most likely the court will throw out the cacophony of bogus false claims. 

Eric we were talking about the court contested 2000 election.....not the current one.

8 minutes ago, nausea said:

Two narratives here. It doesn't help that one side that one side is totally dismissive of the other. After all, c. 50% voted for Trump. That's a large segment of the electorate to ignore.

Whatever the percentage is  they're not bring ignored. Just battered in court.

And anyway, what's this nonsense about being ignored? Were Democrats ignored when Hillary Clinton lost despite her having more votes than Trump? And Biden won with a bigger margin. No one is being ignored. Just a

lot of misled really really sore losers

Edited December 11, 20205 yr by placeholder

First its fraud, that didn't work. Now procedure. What next? Were the voting booths painted blue?

His complexion will match the orange jump suit he will soon be wearing ????????

58 minutes ago, sanuk711 said:

I'm the one who is confused Stevenl......your suppose to explain it to me..........????

No, I'm not.

 

A leading, tell tale question like that does not deserve an answer from me. 

Edited December 11, 20205 yr by stevenl

19 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Whatever the percentage is  they're not bring ignored. Just battered in court.

And anyway, what's this nonsense about being ignored? Were Democrats ignored when Hillary Clinton lost despite her having more votes than Trump? And Biden won with a bigger margin. No one is being ignored. Just a

lot of misled really really sore losers

 

Good points well made. The flawed electoral procedures that eked out a win for Biden in the "battleground" states in 2020 are the same flawed electoral procedures that eked out a win for Trump in the same "battleground" states in 2016.

 

So we're even. Move on.

 

And someone fix those bloody "flawed electoral procedures" before 2024, OK?

"Bogus".............Yeah I like that, fits just right.

Edited December 11, 20205 yr by onthedarkside
name calling reference removed

1 hour ago, Walker88 said:

A cult is a cult is a cult. 45 is the leader of a cult, like Jim Jones, or worse like Hitler.

 

In the past, I would have said your comments above are taking it too far, even for Trump and Co...

 

But now, I'm not so sure you're not correct:

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/arizona-republican-party-overturn-election-results-death/

Arizona Republican Party asks followers if they're willing to die to overturn election results

 

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/08/arizona-republican-party-asks-if-followers-die-election-president-donald-trump/6488952002/

Arizona GOP asks followers if they're willing to die in effort to overturn election results

The Arizona Republican Party has asked its followers if they are willing to die for the cause of overturning the presidential election results, eliciting alarm and criticism from within and outside the GOP.

 

The party's official Twitter account on Monday night shared a post from Ali Alexander, an activist with an organization called "Stop the Steal" that has protested election results. 

 

"I am willing to give my life for this fight," Alexander wrote. When sharing his comment, the GOP asked followers: "He is. Are you?"

 

The above kinds of comments sound pretty much like cult-like, extremist behavior to me. There's a delusional election-denying mania afoot in the country that I'm afraid is getting to the point of becoming very dangerous.

 

 

8 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

In the past, I would have said your comments above are taking it too far, even for Trump and Co...

 

But now, I'm not so sure you're not correct:

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/arizona-republican-party-overturn-election-results-death/

Arizona Republican Party asks followers if they're willing to die to overturn election results

 

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/08/arizona-republican-party-asks-if-followers-die-election-president-donald-trump/6488952002/

Arizona GOP asks followers if they're willing to die in effort to overturn election results

The Arizona Republican Party has asked its followers if they are willing to die for the cause of overturning the presidential election results, eliciting alarm and criticism from within and outside the GOP.

 

The party's official Twitter account on Monday night shared a post from Ali Alexander, an activist with an organization called "Stop the Steal" that has protested election results. 

 

"I am willing to give my life for this fight," Alexander wrote. When sharing his comment, the GOP asked followers: "He is. Are you?"

 

The above kinds of comments sound pretty much like cult-like, extremist behavior to me.

 

 

Even Godwin of Godwin's Law has said it is now appropriate, in the face of kids in cages, the Moslem ban, the attacks against political opponents and democracy, the gassing of peaceful protesters and media crews just for a 45 photo op holding a Bible upside down, to make the analogy between the cult of 45 and Nazi Germany.

 

45 is fomenting violence. His comments about 'stand back and stand by for the proud boys', his total silence in the face of the MI Governor kidnap/execution plot, his goobers threatening election officials and elected officials in several States (showing up at homes with AR-15s or posting images of officials, their home address and their head in the middle of crosshairs). The fascist grab for power 18 State AGs plus 106 sitting members of the House is absolutely Hitler-esque. like his Machtergreifung where the Nazis simply seized power through corruption and intimidation, even using torchlit SS marches through Berlin reminiscent of the tikitorch "Jews will not replace us" march in Charlottesville whom 45 called 'some very fine people'.

 

They are evil and capable of heinous evil, and they are being led, purposely, by 45.

 

11 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

They are evil and capable of heinous evil, and they are being led, purposely, by 45.

 

I think the main thing he and they are about is exterminating U.S. democracy -- if that's what it takes to keep Trump in power.

 

That's what the Texas AG's lawsuit is about, as well as the various Republican calls to take the election away from the country's voter, and have it decided in Congress.

 

It's all shockingly anti-democratic and an affront to the principles that the country was founded upon.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-threats/election-officials-face-threats-intimidation-as-trump-pushes-false-fraud-claims-idUSKBN28I1D9

 

Election officials face threats, intimidation as Trump pushes false fraud claims

...

Supporters of Trump in recent weeks have staked out election officials’ offices in Georgia, mounted armed protests in Arizona and left menacing telephone messages for election officials across the country, producing political turmoil unlike any other in modern U.S. history.

 

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said that the baseless fraud claims and subsequent threats against election officials are “very damaging to our democracy. I hope it’s not the end of our democracy.”

...

Trump himself has described Georgia’s Republican secretary of state as an “enemy of the people”, and one of his lawyers, Joe diGenova, said last week the administration’s former election cybersecurity chief should be “taken out at dawn and shot” for publicly defending the integrity of the election.

 

Edited December 11, 20205 yr by TallGuyJohninBKK