Jump to content

Trump supporters?


Recommended Posts

My credibilty is just fine and I stand by my words. I called BS on Russiagate, the Ukraine impeachment, Mueller probe, General Flynn, etc that sooo many swore would be the big one to take DT down. I'll hold the line.

 

Yeeeaaaahhhh..... here's the thing:

 

You don't get to decide your own credibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yeeeaaaahhhh..... here's the thing:

 

You don't get to decide your own credibility.

 

That's funny given the amount lent to the MSM who have been consistently on the wrong on those abovementioned scandals among others against the Trump administration. Yet no apologies or retractions from the media and posters here when the truth emerged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I recall, the democrats spent 4 years trying to show collusion between Trump and Russia. Because there was just no way Donald could have beaten St. Hillary without actively working with the Russians.

If I recall, investigation showed no collusion.

I didn’t say anything about Clinton, but rather the Democratic Party. You know, Pelosi’s and Schumer's party and investigation after investigation.

Russia may surely have tried to alter the election. No one disputes this. China and Iran probably did too, both in 2016 and in 2020. The US has certainly tried to alter elections in Venezuela, throughout the Americas, and abroad. No one disputes that either.

 

Trump does, of course, have a right to do what the laws allow him to do. We don’t all agree with every local, state, and federal law, but that’s what appellate courts are all about. Most of us (including me) dislike what he is doing, but I for one do not begrudge him doing it if the laws allow him to do it.

What on earth is wrong about making sure votes were done and counted legally? Didn’t 2000 set precedent for that?

If courts determine that everything is as it should be, I’m confident Donald will hand in the keys.

I just hope no one in the Biden transition team has the audacity to reach out to any foreign intermediaries until Biden is sworn in. We've seen what can happen.

 

You are conflating issues, again, as Russia has no place in this discussion. Clinton lost the election 4 years ago by a far narrower vote count than we are seeing today yet conceded within a day. Thankfully they didn't raise this stink that is being done today and challenging whether night is day. What has been raised in courts to date has been frankly embarrassing as cause for this fiasco. There is a very, very big difference between complaining for 4 years and dragging process through the courts and delegitimising elections for generations to come - unless they can actually show some proof!!

 

Every election will have some issues when over 150 million votes are cast. So we are now setting the groundwork for every single election to be fought out in court regardless of the margins. 2000 was a margin of 500+ votes so it was certainly worth fighting for on both sides. This is just not close and no evidence has still be shown to a court. It is a farce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Full disclosure: I don't think there was enough election fraud to tip the election to Biden. If there was any at all. I would be shocked if they found enough to have changed the outcome of the election. I also didn't think there was any collusion with Russia, so keep that in mind too.

 

Here's the thing, the Democratic party just spent a large chunk of the previous 4 years crying about election fraud. The media was complicit in this. Then they tried to impeach him because, you know, he's not a real president. #notmypresident The seeds of doubt about election meddling have been sewn from all that. This time it's the RIGHT who is crying foul. What did any of us expect?

 

Let's put the shoe on the other foot, how many of you on the left side of the aisle would just say, "Just concede Joe Biden. No election shenanigans." I'd venture to say most, if not all, would be crying foul. That is not an indictment of you as people. That's just politics today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Full disclosure: I don't think there was enough election fraud to tip the election to Biden. If there was any at all. I would be shocked if they found enough to have changed the outcome of the election. I also didn't think there was any collusion with Russia, so keep that in mind too.

 

Here's the thing, the Democratic party just spent a large chunk of the previous 4 years crying about election fraud. The media was complicit in this. Then they tried to impeach him because, you know, he's not a real president. #notmypresident The seeds of doubt about election meddling have been sewn from all that. This time it's the RIGHT who is crying foul. What did any of us expect?

 

Let's put the shoe on the other foot, how many of you on the left side of the aisle would just say, "Just concede Joe Biden. No election shenanigans." I'd venture to say most, if not all, would be crying foul. That is not an indictment of you as people. That's just politics today.

 

Your second paragraph is spot on. The difference now is that the media is complicit in stifling questions about the election "irregularities" while big tech is actively banning people from discussing the issue, to include POTUS and other conservative figures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the thing, the Democratic party just spent a large chunk of the previous 4 years crying about election fraud. The media was complicit in this. Then they tried to impeach him because, you know, he's not a real president. #notmypresident The seeds of doubt about election meddling have been sewn from all that. This time it's the RIGHT who is crying foul. What did any of us expect?.

 

What? This is the first I've heard of any claim of election fraud in 2016.

 

The Russia story was about whether there was collusion. Not election fraud. People here seem to be having trouble grasping what Republicans are trying to do here. It is to fundamentally break down the legitimacy of the election process with currently zero proof. Its a tactic generally seen in Africa, Iran, Venezuela etc.. need we continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are conflating issues, again, as Russia has no place in this discussion. Clinton lost the election 4 years ago by a far narrower vote count than we are seeing today yet conceded within a day. Thankfully they didn't raise this stink that is being done today and challenging whether night is day. What has been raised in courts to date has been frankly embarrassing as cause for this fiasco. There is a very, very big difference between complaining for 4 years and dragging process through the courts and delegitimising elections for generations to come - unless they can actually show some proof!!

 

Every election will have some issues when over 150 million votes are cast. So we are now setting the groundwork for every single election to be fought out in court regardless of the margins. 2000 was a margin of 500+ votes so it was certainly worth fighting for on both sides. This is just not close and no evidence has still be shown to a court. It is a farce.

 

Embarrassment is subjective. And much like shame and anger, we as individuals and society often learn from these strong emotions and become better.

But emotions don’t often win legal arguments.

 

And of course you’re right. It only took them 35 days after the 2000 election to certify the outcome. Bush lead by 1700 votes and it was challenged. They literally brought in chad experts who could discern how a voter meant to vote based on how a chad was hanging. Was that a fiasco or an embarrassment? To many it certainly was. And it took 35 days to figure it out for such small numbers in one state. Numbers and percentages actually do matter. If a state our a county has laws that allow for recounts when the margin of victory is less than x percent, then the losing candidate by law is allowed to challenge.

What’s being done today is exposure of more flawed processes. Maybe not hanging chads but flawed in other ways. Regardless of the outcome, which seems pretty clear, the exposure of flawed processes will result in more fair and inclusive voting in future elections. And make no mistake, this is also about future elections. Vote by mail will become a bigger issue. It seems like a good idea to do everything possible to ensure it is a process through which all votes cast legally and on time are counted. Those that fall outside those boundaries are not.

The process in Pennsylvania was flawed. Enough to change the outcome? Probably not. But if it’s flawed enough to cast this degree of doubt (maybe not to many but certainly to a large number) then why not expose it so it has to change? Documents and witnesses have been presented to various courts. The question remains whether the courts view the evidence presented as enough to take the actions the plaintiffs seek. If it were so clear, the courts would have shot everything down already.

It’s a farce and embarrassment for you and for everyone who voted for Harris/Biden and for many who voted for Trump. It’s not a legal farce and that really really gets under peoples’ skin. When enough people don’t like certain laws, they elect people to change them. Like Kamala. Make sure the processes are valid. Make sure they pass constitutional muster, or at least look decent enough to be almost reasonably validated by the majority of the 9 or however many Supreme Court justices.

Edited by Kelly Gruene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just one example (there are many others to work through), but it goes to show that the true issue at the heart of this issue is (IMHO) whether or not there is a presumption of guilt/fraud.

 

https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/dead-voter-cited-trump-lawsuit-never-cast-ballot-michigan-records-show

 

Of course it's good to review our election system and find ways to improve it. Florida has come a long way since 2000 and that began with the 2000 debacle. In addition, it's clear that a material portion of our election systems (not just the system for processing ballots, but the systems for changing the systems) were not engineered/stress-tested to respond to an airborne novel virus so virulent that it has killed 250K Americans and ravaged our economy. These issues are compounded by the most partisan political environment in the US (with the possible exception of the civil war era), so both sides leveraged the mechanisms for improving the election system(s) for political gains (think what credit-default-swaps did to the '08 mortgage crisis).

 

All of this being said, there seems to be a flaw in the arguments being made, at least from my perspective. They arguments are not so much "hey, this is a weird year and we're hearing concerning stuff, let's give this a closer look to make sure things are good" as much as they are "this election was fraudulent, and I'm going to go get proof". As I said on an earlier post, if you have proof, you don't have to go get it and I don't have to wait for it (or debunk it). It leaves this smelling as more of a "I don't like the result, therefore it must be crooked".

 

Also something I mentioned before, it is examples like these that are super damaging to these pursuits. Every time an example is raised up and then it's so easily and resoundingly debunked, it not only erodes what little interest I had in this exercise, it further motivates me to be done with what reads as a trivial exercise motivated more by sour grapes (and a cash grab) than anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soulpatch, I couldn't agree more. You have presented a reasonable position, which leaves itself options for disagreement which have been wholly bypassed in favor of.... "I've reached a conclusion, now I'm going to pretend there's support for it, and when it becomes obvious there's no support, I'm going to double down and call everyone else unreasonable."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just one example (there are many others to work through), but it goes to show that the true issue at the heart of this issue is (IMHO) whether or not there is a presumption of guilt/fraud.

 

https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/dead-voter-cited-trump-lawsuit-never-cast-ballot-michigan-records-show

 

Of course it's good to review our election system and find ways to improve it. Florida has come a long way since 2000 and that began with the 2000 debacle. In addition, it's clear that a material portion of our election systems (not just the system for processing ballots, but the systems for changing the systems) were not engineered/stress-tested to respond to an airborne novel virus so virulent that it has killed 250K Americans and ravaged our economy. These issues are compounded by the most partisan political environment in the US (with the possible exception of the civil war era), so both sides leveraged the mechanisms for improving the election system(s) for political gains (think what credit-default-swaps did to the '08 mortgage crisis).

 

All of this being said, there seems to be a flaw in the arguments being made, at least from my perspective. They arguments are not so much "hey, this is a weird year and we're hearing concerning stuff, let's give this a closer look to make sure things are good" as much as they are "this election was fraudulent, and I'm going to go get proof". As I said on an earlier post, if you have proof, you don't have to go get it and I don't have to wait for it (or debunk it). It leaves this smelling as more of a "I don't like the result, therefore it must be crooked".

 

Also something I mentioned before, it is examples like these that are super damaging to these pursuits. Every time an example is raised up and then it's so easily and resoundingly debunked, it not only erodes what little interest I had in this exercise, it further motivates me to be done with what reads as a trivial exercise motivated more by sour grapes (and a cash grab) than anything else.

 

Nicely stated.

 

However, the losing side in a close election will always either question the result or review what they did or didn't do to help them win.

In my opinion, rather than damaging electoral processes, I think these types of reviews just make the processes better over the long term. Reviews like these mandate that states "come a long way", just as Florida did after 2000. We don't use chads any more. Perhaps we need to continue to look at, expose, and improve flawed processes across the board. Nothing wrong with that, at least to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicely stated.

 

However, the losing side in a close election will always either question the result or review what they did or didn't do to help them win.

In my opinion, rather than damaging electoral processes, I think these types of reviews just make the processes better over the long term. Reviews like these mandate that states "come a long way", just as Florida did after 2000. We don't use chads any more. Perhaps we need to continue to look at, expose, and improve flawed processes across the board. Nothing wrong with that, at least to me.

 

If we want to improve the election process, which has been argued about for years, very simple pricesses should take place. Probably the easiest of which, mandatory voter ID. You need an ID for pretty much everything in life, there are no valid argument why this shouldn't be law. It isn't racist, proves you are a resident in the district you are voting in, and can easily determine that you are not a zombie or were alive during the Civil War.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicely stated.

 

However, the losing side in a close election will always either question the result or review what they did or didn't do to help them win.

In my opinion, rather than damaging electoral processes, I think these types of reviews just make the processes better over the long term. Reviews like these mandate that states "come a long way", just as Florida did after 2000. We don't use chads any more. Perhaps we need to continue to look at, expose, and improve flawed processes across the board. Nothing wrong with that, at least to me.

 

But they are not reviews nor is this the time for a review unless there is evidence that something was seriously amiss here. Everything is being framed in the lense that this was a fraudulent election that with words like ILLEGAL, THEFT and FRAUD punctuating the narrative coming from the WH.

 

There is zero evidence of this thus far. In fact they are actively trawling for any sign of discrepancies with whistleblower hotlines and ginning up supporters that they have been wronged due to some massive nation and statewide perpetrated by Democrats. That is just completely wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they are not reviews nor is this the time for a review unless there is evidence that something was seriously amiss here. Everything is being framed in the lense that this was a fraudulent election that with words like ILLEGAL, THEFT and FRAUD punctuating the narrative coming from the WH.

 

There is zero evidence of this thus far. In fact they are actively trawling for any sign of discrepancies with whistleblower hotlines and ginning up supporters that they have been wronged due to some massive nation and statewide perpetrated by Democrats. That is just completely wrong.

 

You and I are going to disagree about this forever, and that's fine.

I agree that Trump and his minions could use better wording. However, just because you and I don't have all the information available that is being presented to the courts, that doesn't mean that there's nothing valid being presented. Just because a news outlet doesn't report something doesn't mean it didn't happen. I'm pretty sure that citizens of Beijing have no idea about what's happening to the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, for instance.

As with any litigation, I prefer to let the legal arguments run their course, rather than trying things on the internet or in the media. I don't have all the information that the courts receive. Maybe you do.

 

Use better language, you Trumpians!

Courts, show us what you got!

Media, report what the courts actually got! Don't spin it, just report it! (as if...)

Edited by Kelly Gruene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no systemic election fraud....election officials across the country, republican and democrat have seen NO evidence of fraud....the georgia secretary of state the arizona secretary of state,,,both republicans echo the same chant from across the nation....election officials in EVERY swing state are on record with NO fraud....in fact the opposite seems to be true...this was perhaps the best run election in our history....150 million in the middle of a pandemic...with international observers invited in by trump...with poll watchers...with intense scrutiny throughout the country...

 

Frankly this is both pathetic and ridiculous...we have a petulant child sulking in the white house...he needs to man up and accept reality...

 

Now if you listen to don Jr ..or Rudy..or project veritas..:) you get a different story....this is silly and sad....

 

Trump is done...hes gonna pardon himself and most everyone else ...

 

FAKE FRAUD....this is how he goes out....threatening to be back in 2024...

 

If you love the trump act...and mostly thats all it is..he will keep up the show

for you from florida...with endless whining and ranting to keep your attention

 

Frankly with hospitals getting overwhelmed, i think it would be nice to have someone at least try to lead us out of this pandemic the donald is simply incapable of that...just as he is incapable of accepting the election

 

aloha

Edited by hawaiiirish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no systemic election fraud....election officials across the country, republican and democrat have seen NO evidence of fraud....the georgia secretary of state the arizona secretary of state,,,both republicans echo the same chant from across the nation....election officials in EVERY swing state are on record with NO fraud....in fact the opposite seems to be true...this was perhaps the best run election in our history....150 million in the middle of a pandemic...with international observers invited in by trump...with poll watchers...with intense scrutiny throughout the country...

 

Frankly this is both pathetic and ridiculous...we have a petulant child sulking in the white house...he needs to man up and accept reality...

 

Now if you listen to don Jr ..or Rudy..or project veritas..:) you get a different story....this is silly and sad....

 

Trump is done...hes gonna pardon himself and most everyone else ...

 

FAKE FRAUD....this is how he goes out....threatening to be back in 2024...

 

If you love the trump act...and mostly thats all it is..he will keep up the show

for you from florida...with endless whining and ranting to keep your attention

 

Frankly i think it would be nice to have someone at least try to lead us out of this pandemic the donald is simply incapable of that...just as he is incapable of accepting the election

 

aloha

 

And there you have it.

Case closed.

 

Except for those pesky legal issues...

https://www.pennlive.com/elections/2020/11/a-trump-win-pa-court-says-commonwealth-secretary-boockvar-lacked-authority-to-extend-ballot-deadline.html

 

Now, it may not be fraud, and it will not likely change the outcome.

Again, I don't know what's being presented to the courts. But something is being presented, and it's not all being thrown out. Since it's not all being thrown out, maybe there's something to some of the individual arguments. If Trump wins more of these legal arguments in court, would it be pathetic and ridiculous for a petulant Biden to appeal those decisions to a higher court? Or would he just have to man up and accept the court's decisions? Of course not. He would take advantage of his right to appeal, according to the applicable laws.

I'm glad that so many posters are so adamant.

I'm confident Biden won the election. I'm also all for being sure that processes are fair and inclusive. And legal.

 

And we all need to be mindful of our gender phrasing. ‘Man up’ is no longer accepted. The correct phrasing has been changed. It now is ‘person who doesn’t bleed up’.

While that just doesn’t sound right, I guess those born with XY chromosomes just need to person who doesn’t bleed up and accept it. Unless of course they’re misogynistic.

Edited by Kelly Gruene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me see if I have this straight:

 

When news outlets call states for Trump, that means he won. When news outlets call states for Biden, that is meaningless.

 

When Trump gains ground in a state as counting continues, that’s good. When Biden gains ground, that’s fraud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we want to improve the election process, which has been argued about for years, very simple pricesses should take place. Probably the easiest of which, mandatory voter ID. You need an ID for pretty much everything in life, there are no valid argument why this shouldn't be law. It isn't racist, proves you are a resident in the district you are voting in, and can easily determine that you are not a zombie or were alive during the Civil War.

 

What! Next they will put bar codes on our necks! Not to mention taking away states rights! Only a libertarian when it suits you. You only need a photo Id to drive btw. You can fill out any credit app online, even without a dl number. I just bought a car and filled out the financing online and drove off the lot without even showing a DL. It is extremely rare to need a photo I’d anymore, so really there is a valid argument to your outdated point.

 

 

Separate point, so tort reform, when Trumps goons sue every state they want, and Trump in general loves to sue. That’s out the window as a main republican platform to save money now right?

Edited by Jim2Dokes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What! Next they will put bar codes on our necks! Not to mention taking away states rights! Only a libertarian when it suits you. You only need a photo Id to drive btw. You can fill out any credit app online, even without a dl number. I just bought a car and filled out the financing online and drove off the lot without even showing a DL. It is extremely rare to need a photo I’d anymore, so really there is a valid argument to your outdated point.

 

 

Separate point, so tort reform, when Trumps goons sue every state they want, and Trump in general loves to sue. That’s out the window as a main republican platform to save money now right?

 

Only to drive huh. Guess I should tell people to go to hell next time I try to purchase alcohol, tobacco, hunting or fishing licenses, certain cold medicines, get welfare or food stamps, Medicare/Medicaid, buy a house or rental, a hotel room, get on an airplane, file unemployment, buy a firearm or ammo, and those are off the top of my head. Maybe its just where I'm from, but I suspect most are pretty universal.

 

BTW am I Republican or libertarian? You just referred to me as both in one post. I don't claim to be either and seem to recall saying this on a few occasions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only to drive huh. Guess I should tell people to go to hell next time I try to purchase alcohol, tobacco, hunting or fishing licenses, certain cold medicines, get welfare or food stamps, Medicare/Medicaid, buy a house or rental, a hotel room, get on an airplane, file unemployment, buy a firearm or ammo, and those are off the top of my head. Maybe its just where I'm from, but I suspect most are pretty universal.

 

BTW am I Republican or libertarian? You just referred to me as both in one post. I don't claim to be either and seem to recall saying this on a few occasions.

 

Whoa you are mixing up a lot of state laws versus federal. First alcohol, some states require you to look at certain age for the vendor to ask for your id, it is not a requirement. Cold medicines? Sorry not all states like Iowa are addicted to meth. Food stamps ect? Nope not all states. Fire arms etc? Not all states. Buy a house? Are you paying cash or is a private lender requiring this? A electric bill and social security number may suffice for the title company. Flying? Nope! “Not even that n the event you arrive at the airport without valid identification, because it is lost or at home, you may still be allowed to fly. The TSA officer may ask you to complete an identity verification process which includes collecting information such as your name, current address, and other personal information to confirm your identity. If your identity is confirmed, you will be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint. You will be subject to additional screening, to include a patdown and screening of carry-on property.“

 

Wrong as usual. Go back and get some facts from you QAnon friends.

 

Your boy lost man, give it up. It’s clear also as proven throughout this thread your lies and conspiracies have been exposed. “ massive fraud” “ there is tons of evidence” lol. Man just live a good life and stop. I could go on and on on **** you said in this thread is straight up bullshit “kung flu“. Just relax, take a deep breath and let’s all just move on from this terrible thread and even worse president.

 

You are right, I am not going to do any research, I am pretty sure I remember you stated you are a libertarian, but it is clear you are a totalitarian.

Edited by Jim2Dokes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm reading that the US Army raided the Dominion server site in Germany and seized the servers. This was also mentioned by a congressman as well as retweeted by Sydney Powell tonight. Huge if true.

 

**and this is intended to be an apolitical statement. I'm just wondering what is on those servers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm reading that the US Army raided the Dominion server site in Germany and seized the servers. This was also mentioned by a congressman as well as retweeted by Sydney Powell tonight. Huge if true.

 

**and this is intended to be an apolitical statement. I'm just wondering what is on those servers?

 

Hmm, the first question I would ask is why the us army is raiding things in Germany? There are treaties and such that prevent that. Also, why the us army and not cia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...