• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump is not going to accept election results Rough and ugly transition ahead.

acbytesla said:
Koo Koo for Cocoa Puffs. C'mon Rocky. That's ******* nonsense.

Trump is talking out loud about not accepting the election results. He talks about voter fraud where there is absolutely no history of any. Hillary Clinton conceded the election within hours. The Obama administration worked cooperatively with the Trump transition team.

At most you can point to is people complaining about the electoral college as opposed to the popular vote.
Click to expand...

And, in fact, some of the "evidence" Trump and his cohort use to support their thesis that mail-in voting is rife with fraud actually leads to the opposite conclusion. As with Trump Jr's claim about dead voters in Michigan:
As the President continues his efforts to discredit voting by mail, he and his allies have pointed to several so-called examples of voter fraud. The latest favorite? More than 800 ballots that were received by mail from "dead voters" in Michigan's recent state-wide primary.

On Twitter Saturday, Donald Trump Jr. shared a tweet about a Breitbart article. The framing of the article and the tweet insinuated that hundreds of ballots were not legitimately cast and perpetuated the President's claim that voting by mail is rife with fraud.

What happened in Michigan was not voter fraud but an example of the system working the way it's supposed to. Michigan's voter verification processes identified ballots from individuals who had died after submitting their ballot. Election officials did not count these ballots, in line with the state's policies.
Click to expand...

So the Trump-off-the-old-block, with the help of Breitbart, trying to show that vote-by-mail can't work, used as evidence a demonstration that it can and does- and ended up showing the exact opposite of what he intended.
 
turingtest said:
And, in fact, some of the "evidence" Trump and his cohort use to support their thesis that mail-in voting is rife with fraud actually leads to the opposite conclusion. As with Trump Jr's claim about dead voters in Michigan:


So the Trump-off-the-old-block, with the help of Breitbart, trying to show that vote-by-mail can't work, used as evidence a demonstration that it can and does- and ended up showing the exact opposite of what he intended.
Click to expand...

Only if you bother to read and understand it.

At face value, dead people voted and many (most ?) people will leave it there.
 
psionl0 said:
Even if you do away with the Senate, Wyoming still has 1 person in congress at 50,000 votes per congress person while California has 55 congress people at 727,273 votes per congress person (a ratio that is still 14.5:1).

How do you resolve that anomaly? Do you say that states as small as Wyoming are not entitled to representation in congress (or to vote for the president) or do you insist that they be swallowed up by a larger state?
Click to expand...

Wyoming has a population of about 578,000. California has a population of about 39.510,00. Wyoming has 1 Congressional delegate. California has 53. Adding 2 Senators to each and you have the total number of votes each has in the Electoral College. 55 to 3.
This equals out to about 718,000 people in California is equal to 193,300 people in Wyoming or about 3.5 to 1. If we simply eliminate the two votes representing the Senators in the EC calculation Wyoming is still over represented, but it is alot closer. Then a Wyoming citizen is worth about 1.2 California citizens.

In a contingent election where the House votes and each state is equal to every other state regardless of the population it is grotesquely undemocratic. In that situation All of California is equal to all of Wyoming. That means 1 citizen of Wyoming is equal to 68 Californians.
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
Exactly, you think he was wrong and that everybody at the rally were neo-Nazis. You can't prove he was wrong, you just think it.
Click to expand...

The burden on proving the accuracy of Trump’s claim falls squarely on his shoulders and the shoulders of those defending his claim.

As someone defending his claim, do you have evidence that there were people not affiliated with a Neo-Nazis and white supremacists attending the a Neo-Nazi/White Supremacist rally?

Turning that into claiming he called neo-Nazi's "very fine people" is not what you would do if misleading people was something you were concerned about. If you or Biden were trying to avoid misleading people, you'd say that he had claimed that some of the marchers at Unite the Right weren't neo-Nazis since that is the point you disagree with him on.
Click to expand...

The only thing here that’s misleading is pretending that the fiction that Trump manufactured to cover his ass is factual.

Trump did what he always does. He made an offensive and/or stupid remark and then immediately contradicted himself, and claims the offensive and/or stupid remark isn’t what he really meant. And then his lickspittles go on the warpath insisting that anyone who doesn’t ignore what he originally said is lying.

You seem to be a victim of this con, or a participant in it.

This is part of why Trump is immune to accusations of that he is a liar. Nobody cares if a bunch of manipulative liars on one side calls out somebody for telling 10000 stupid, obvious, boastful untruths. The Democrats could have taken the high ground on this, not pushed the facts so hard and I'd care a whole lot more the ******** Trump comes out with.
Click to expand...

Trump is immune from those accusations because he is an amoral degenerate who doesn’t care. And his supporters don’t care either because they’re more interested in lashing out at their perceived enemies than having a responsibly governed, functioning society.

That you wish to pretend that anyone connected to Trump is taking a principled stand is laughably disingenuous.
 
acbytesla said:
He may not need to. There are some Constitutional scholars who argue the President can pardon himself. I don't agree with that argument however.
Click to expand...


Would Trump be prepared to accept a pardon? There’s a Supreme Court decision, Burdick v US, that says that accepting a pardon implies an acceptance of guilt. I’m not sure if Trump is capable of doing that.
 
shuttlt said:
No! I said the "fact" that they were all neo-Nazi's didn't matter.
Click to expand...

It actually does matter.

Because until the unproven claim that there were other participants other than Neo-Nazis and white supremacists at Neo-Nazi/White Supremacist rally is factually substantiated, it remains a falsehood.

And as long as it remains a falsehood, then Trump was in fact calling Neo-Nazis and white supremacists “very fine people”.
 
psionl0 said:
Even if you do away with the Senate, Wyoming still has 1 person in congress at 50,000 votes per congress person while California has 55 congress people at 727,273 votes per congress person (a ratio that is still 14.5:1).

How do you resolve that anomaly? Do you say that states as small as Wyoming are not entitled to representation in congress (or to vote for the president) or do you insist that they be swallowed up by a larger state?
Click to expand...

As to voting for your president, who is an individual working for all the people, I have this quaint notion that it should be strictly by popular vote. Every voter would have exactly the same influence.

As to representation in Congress. What with the ever increasing population it could be argued that a proportional increase in representatives would be a step toward keeping the imbalance between rural and urban, interior and coastal from worsening. If a smaller populace could support X delegates, then 2X the population can surely have 2X reps.
 
Mojo said:
Would Trump be prepared to accept a pardon? There’s a Supreme Court decision, Burdick v US, that says that accepting a pardon implies an acceptance of guilt. I’m not sure if Trump is capable of doing that.
Click to expand...

Well to begin with, that's a legal interpretation. He'll simply deny that implication. But that I'm sure will be a secondary consideration

In other words, it beats the hell out of prison.
 
varwoche said:
Fixed it for you.
Click to expand...


Why did you do that?

wake_up_sheeple.png
 
Mojo said:
Would Trump be prepared to accept a pardon? There’s a Supreme Court decision, Burdick v US, that says that accepting a pardon implies an acceptance of guilt. I’m not sure if Trump is capable of doing that.
Click to expand...

If it's effectively admitting guilt to assure that his marbled ass stays out of prison, I can see him swallowing his pride.
 
rockysmith76 said:
Then don't be complacent this time around and vote him out, and maybe stop being triggered.
Click to expand...

The presidential election isn't a beauty pageant.

At the very least, objectionable behavior should be called out. You should understand the frustration against elected public officials and voters who've avoided saying a word against Trump at his worst for the last four years.
 
smartcooky said:
If Biden wins the election, then at noon Eastern Standard Time on Wednesday, January 20, Trump's presidency ends and Biden's will begin. The Secret Service will no longer be working for Trump, they will be working for Biden.
Click to expand...

They would continue to work for the director of the secret service, who would still report to the director of homeland security. If Trump signed an executive order declaring the election results invalid, would the director of homeland security continue to follow Trumps orders? If so would the, would the director of the Secret Service continue to obey the Director of Homeland security?

One would hope there people do not continue to follow Trumps orders, but there is built in inertia in chains of command so they very well may. The fact that the current (Acting) Director of Homeland Security is a trump supporter doesn’t make me hopeful.

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

Chad F. Wolf is an American government official serving as the acting United States Secretary of Homeland Security, and as Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Strategy, Policy, and Plans, since 2019. On August 14, 2020, the GAO ruled that his succession as DHS Secretary was improper and that Wolf was ineligible to serve in the role;[2][3] the Trump administration disputes this and Wolf continues in the role.

A member of the Republican Party, Wolf previously served in several positions in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including as Chief of Staff of the Transportation Security Administration and Chief of Staff to DHS secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. He was an architect of the Trump administration family separation policy in 2018, and was prominently involved in the deployment of federal law enforcement forces in Portland and elsewhere beginning in July 2020.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom