2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[a fan]

..& unless there are significant cases of fraud uncovered now, there will be no basis for this claim, & the results of any recounts, audits or legal challenges conducted now can be used to debunk those complaints.

OS, for heaven's sake. 70% of Republicans think that the vote is fraudulent. They're gonna take that poll again in a few months, as you know.

Wanna wager what that poll says after the votes have been verified?

That's my point -- this is a unique opportunity, a large experimental trial, to refine the process. Don't flush it down the drain without seizing the opportunity to examine, analyze it & refine the process going forward.

You're telling me that you don't know that every single Sec of State, and every single County and City Clerk in America does a post mortem after every election?

What do you think these people do over the next two years, before the next election?

It will be debated, then decided, in State Legislatures around the country.
The more facts (as opposed to opinion polls) they have to work with, the better the outcome.

Nonsense, and you know it. Facts mean NOTHING in TrumpLand.

Care for a gentleman's wager? I'll wager that no matter what happens from investigations into various State elections, that that 70% number of Republicans who think that the vote is fraudulent won't dip below 50% when the dust settles.

And that should make Putin REALLY happy. Nice job.

[seacoaster]

The GOP doesn’t believe in democracy:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... UlOqChJN5j

A Pennsylvania postal worker whose claims have been cited by top Republicans as potential evidence of widespread voting irregularities admitted to U.S. Postal Service investigators that he fabricated the allegations, according to three officials briefed on the investigation and a statement from a House congressional committee.

Richard Hopkins’s claim that a postmaster in Erie, Pa., instructed postal workers to backdate ballots mailed after Election Day was cited by Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) in a letter to the Justice Department calling for a federal investigation. Attorney General William P. Barr subsequently authorized federal prosecutors to open probes into credible allegations of voting irregularities and fraud before results are certified, a reversal of long-standing Justice Department policy.
But on Monday, Hopkins, 32, told investigators from the U.S. Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General that the allegations were not true, and he signed an affidavit recanting his claims, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe an ongoing investigation. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee tweeted late Tuesday that the “whistleblower completely RECANTED.”

Hopkins did not respond to messages from The Washington Post seeking comment through his social media accounts, family members and phone messages earlier this week. But in a YouTube video he posted Tuesday night, he denied recanting. “I’m here to say I did not recant my statements. That did not happen,” he said.

The reversal to investigators comes as Trump has refused to concede to President-elect Joe Biden (D), citing unproven allegations about widespread voter fraud in an attempt to swing the results in his favor. Republicans held up Hopkins’s claims as among the most credible because he signed an affidavit swearing that he overheard a supervisor instructing colleagues to backdate ballots mailed after Nov. 3.

The Trump campaign provided that affidavit to Graham, who in turn asked the Justice Department and FBI to launch an investigation.

....

Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe on Saturday hailed Hopkins as “an American hero” on Twitter. A GoFundMe page created under Hopkins’s name had raised more than $136,000 by Tuesday evening, with donors praising him as a patriot and whistleblower. The fundraising page was removed by GoFundMe after this story was published Tuesday, a spokesman for the platform said.“

[seacoaster]

Pretty definitive clip concerning Arizona, from its Republican AG:

https://twitter.com/andrewboxford/statu ... 9309073410

[old salt]

Salty is such a pettifogging weasel. Pathetic.

Here's the testimony from the GSA in 2000 as BvG was raging in December 2000. Quite reasonable stuff under the circumstances. 2000 bears ZERO resemblance to today's situation.

The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 makes it my responsibility to "ascertain" the "apparent successful candidates" for President and Vice President before the funds, services and facilities authorized by the Act become available to the Transition Team. While the Act gives no explicit criteria or deadlines for making this ascertainment, as the legislative history demonstrates, Congress made it perfectly clear that if there is "any question" of who the winner is "in a close contest" this determination should not be made.

Under the Presidential Transition Act, GSA has no role in determining who the next President will be or affecting the contest for the Presidency. The law does not authorize me to pick the next President or predict who the next president will be. Instead, the law creates a simple, common sense requirement for me to identify the President-elect after it is clear that one candidate has won the election. In this unprecedented, incredibly close, and intensely contested election, with legal action being pursued by both sides, it is not apparent to me who the winner is. That is why I have not "ascertained" a President-elect.

https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/newsroom/c ... d-j-barram

Under the current situation, the GSA is not acting in good faith. She's wilfully breaking the law and her oath of office. The statute specifically uses the broad terms "ascertain" and "apparent" intentionally. So that the transition process would not be bogged down in Salty-esque hyper-technicalities that mean nothing and frustrate the national interest.

The GSA needs to be immediately hauled in front of Congress to explain her untenable lawless weasel position.

Is pettifogging a synonym for bootlicking?

Sheesh. Calm down. You need to adapt the Pres Elect's composure.
Are media tallies part of the process laid out in the Constitution ?
Which states have certified their results ?
I said I'm fine with the transition proceeding. You're making it sound like laws are being broken.
That's why I asked what the law says & posted this link :

https://www.govexec.com/management/2020 ... on/169854/

The major news outlets on Saturday morning declared former Vice President Joe Biden the victor of the presidential election, but the transition process cannot formally begin until the head of the General Services Administration gives the green light.

Although the final count was still being tallied over the weekend in several battleground states, Biden’s win in Pennsylvania with its 20 electoral college votes ensured he would prevail. Nonetheless, President Trump issued a statement disputing the call and said, “Beginning Monday, our campaign will start prosecuting our case in court to ensure election laws are fully upheld and the rightful winner is seated.”

The Electoral College is set to meet on December 14 and Inauguration Day is January 20.

“In accordance with the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, as amended, the GSA administrator ascertains the apparent successful candidate once a winner is clear based on the process laid out in the Constitution,” a GSA spokesperson told Government Executive on Friday. “The administrator’s ascertainment is done for the purposes of making services provided by the [transition act] available. Until an ascertainment is made, the statute allows for the Biden transition team to continue to receive the pre-elect services from the government (e.g., limited office space, computers, background investigations for security clearances). GSA has met all statutory requirements under the [transition act] for this election cycle and will continue to do so.”

GSA would need to ascertain a winner before Biden could send teams into the agencies, ...the funding would become available to Biden only after “the administrator ascertains an apparent winner of the general election that is not the incumbent,” said GSA.

“There don’t seem to be standards for how and when [the ascertainment] needs to happen,” Don Kettl, the Sid Richardson professor at the University of Texas at Austin’s Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, told Government Executive. “GSA has been supporting the candidates up to Election Day. The government’s support of the transition, however, can’t begin until the GSA administrator authorizes it.”

He continued, “Given the fact that there’s such discretion in the process, the core question is this: Will the administrator turn on the transition as soon as the networks call the election? If the networks call Biden as the winner, will the administrator launch the transition if the case is still in the courts? Or might the administrator, perhaps, wait until the Electoral College meets and decides, on the grounds that the decision would be contested until that vote is taken?”

Laws have been enacted over the last 20 years to give candidates more support ahead of the election and allowed for the Biden team to continue its transition work without being declared the winner on Tuesday night. Many experts and former transition officials told Government Executive they believe his team will be ready if he wins.

...in 2000––the last time there was a delay in presidential election results––lawmakers grappled with the same questions during a hearing on December 4, 2000, eight days before the Supreme Court declared George W. Bush the winner.

[old salt]

..& unless there are significant cases of fraud uncovered now, there will be no basis for this claim, & the results of any recounts, audits or legal challenges conducted now can be used to debunk those complaints.

OS, for heaven's sake. 70% of Republicans think that the vote is fraudulent. They're gonna take that poll again in a few months, as you know.

Wanna wager what that poll says after the votes have been verified?

That's my point -- this is a unique opportunity, a large experimental trial, to refine the process. Don't flush it down the drain without seizing the opportunity to examine, analyze it & refine the process going forward.

You're telling me that you don't know that every single Sec of State, and every single County and City Clerk in America does a post mortem after every election?

What do you think these people do over the next two years, before the next election?

It will be debated, then decided, in State Legislatures around the country.
The more facts (as opposed to opinion polls) they have to work with, the better the outcome.

Nonsense, and you know it. Facts mean NOTHING in TrumpLand.

Care for a gentleman's wager? I'll wager that no matter what happens from investigations into various State elections, that that 70% number of Republicans who think that the vote is fraudulent won't dip below 50% when the dust settles.

And that should make Putin REALLY happy. Nice job.

Yada, yada, yada. All that matters is what election laws the states adopt for 2022 & 2024.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Salty is such a pettifogging weasel. Pathetic.

Here's the testimony from the GSA in 2000 as BvG was raging in December 2000. Quite reasonable stuff under the circumstances. 2000 bears ZERO resemblance to today's situation.

The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 makes it my responsibility to "ascertain" the "apparent successful candidates" for President and Vice President before the funds, services and facilities authorized by the Act become available to the Transition Team. While the Act gives no explicit criteria or deadlines for making this ascertainment, as the legislative history demonstrates, Congress made it perfectly clear that if there is "any question" of who the winner is "in a close contest" this determination should not be made.

Under the Presidential Transition Act, GSA has no role in determining who the next President will be or affecting the contest for the Presidency. The law does not authorize me to pick the next President or predict who the next president will be. Instead, the law creates a simple, common sense requirement for me to identify the President-elect after it is clear that one candidate has won the election. In this unprecedented, incredibly close, and intensely contested election, with legal action being pursued by both sides, it is not apparent to me who the winner is. That is why I have not "ascertained" a President-elect.

https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/newsroom/c ... d-j-barram

Under the current situation, the GSA is not acting in good faith. She's wilfully breaking the law and her oath of office. The statute specifically uses the broad terms "ascertain" and "apparent" intentionally. So that the transition process would not be bogged down in Salty-esque hyper-technicalities that mean nothing and frustrate the national interest.

The GSA needs to be immediately hauled in front of Congress to explain her untenable lawless weasel position.

Is pettifogging a synonym for bootlicking?

Sheesh. Calm down. You need to adapt the Pres Elect's composure.
Are media tallies part of the process laid out in the Constitution ?
Which states have certified their results ?
I said I'm fine with the transition proceeding. You're making it sound like laws are being broken.
That's why I asked what the law says & posted this link :

https://www.govexec.com/management/2020 ... on/169854/

The major news outlets on Saturday morning declared former Vice President Joe Biden the victor of the presidential election, but the transition process cannot formally begin until the head of the General Services Administration gives the green light.

Although the final count was still being tallied over the weekend in several battleground states, Biden’s win in Pennsylvania with its 20 electoral college votes ensured he would prevail. Nonetheless, President Trump issued a statement disputing the call and said, “Beginning Monday, our campaign will start prosecuting our case in court to ensure election laws are fully upheld and the rightful winner is seated.”

The Electoral College is set to meet on December 14 and Inauguration Day is January 20.

“In accordance with the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, as amended, the GSA administrator ascertains the apparent successful candidate once a winner is clear based on the process laid out in the Constitution,” a GSA spokesperson told Government Executive on Friday. “The administrator’s ascertainment is done for the purposes of making services provided by the [transition act] available. Until an ascertainment is made, the statute allows for the Biden transition team to continue to receive the pre-elect services from the government (e.g., limited office space, computers, background investigations for security clearances). GSA has met all statutory requirements under the [transition act] for this election cycle and will continue to do so.”

GSA would need to ascertain a winner before Biden could send teams into the agencies, ...the funding would become available to Biden only after “the administrator ascertains an apparent winner of the general election that is not the incumbent,” said GSA.

“There don’t seem to be standards for how and when [the ascertainment] needs to happen,” Don Kettl, the Sid Richardson professor at the University of Texas at Austin’s Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, told Government Executive. “GSA has been supporting the candidates up to Election Day. The government’s support of the transition, however, can’t begin until the GSA administrator authorizes it.”

He continued, “Given the fact that there’s such discretion in the process, the core question is this: Will the administrator turn on the transition as soon as the networks call the election? If the networks call Biden as the winner, will the administrator launch the transition if the case is still in the courts? Or might the administrator, perhaps, wait until the Electoral College meets and decides, on the grounds that the decision would be contested until that vote is taken?”

Laws have been enacted over the last 20 years to give candidates more support ahead of the election and allowed for the Biden team to continue its transition work without being declared the winner on Tuesday night. Many experts and former transition officials told Government Executive they believe his team will be ready if he wins.

...in 2000––the last time there was a delay in presidential election results––lawmakers grappled with the same questions during a hearing on December 4, 2000, eight days before the Supreme Court declared George W. Bush the winner.

Who said anything about laws....much of what we do is based on norms and customs but I forgot you are the “it ain’t illegal” guy.

[old salt]

Salty is such a pettifogging weasel. Pathetic.

Here's the testimony from the GSA in 2000 as BvG was raging in December 2000. Quite reasonable stuff under the circumstances. 2000 bears ZERO resemblance to today's situation.

The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 makes it my responsibility to "ascertain" the "apparent successful candidates" for President and Vice President before the funds, services and facilities authorized by the Act become available to the Transition Team. While the Act gives no explicit criteria or deadlines for making this ascertainment, as the legislative history demonstrates, Congress made it perfectly clear that if there is "any question" of who the winner is "in a close contest" this determination should not be made.

Under the Presidential Transition Act, GSA has no role in determining who the next President will be or affecting the contest for the Presidency. The law does not authorize me to pick the next President or predict who the next president will be. Instead, the law creates a simple, common sense requirement for me to identify the President-elect after it is clear that one candidate has won the election. In this unprecedented, incredibly close, and intensely contested election, with legal action being pursued by both sides, it is not apparent to me who the winner is. That is why I have not "ascertained" a President-elect.

https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/newsroom/c ... d-j-barram

Under the current situation, the GSA is not acting in good faith. She's wilfully breaking the law and her oath of office. The statute specifically uses the broad terms "ascertain" and "apparent" intentionally. So that the transition process would not be bogged down in Salty-esque hyper-technicalities that mean nothing and frustrate the national interest.

The GSA needs to be immediately hauled in front of Congress to explain her untenable lawless weasel position.

Is pettifogging a synonym for bootlicking?

Sheesh. Calm down. You need to adapt the Pres Elect's composure.
Are media tallies part of the process laid out in the Constitution ?
Which states have certified their results ?
I said I'm fine with the transition proceeding. You're making it sound like laws are being broken.
That's why I asked what the law says & posted this link :

https://www.govexec.com/management/2020 ... on/169854/

The major news outlets on Saturday morning declared former Vice President Joe Biden the victor of the presidential election, but the transition process cannot formally begin until the head of the General Services Administration gives the green light.

Although the final count was still being tallied over the weekend in several battleground states, Biden’s win in Pennsylvania with its 20 electoral college votes ensured he would prevail. Nonetheless, President Trump issued a statement disputing the call and said, “Beginning Monday, our campaign will start prosecuting our case in court to ensure election laws are fully upheld and the rightful winner is seated.”

The Electoral College is set to meet on December 14 and Inauguration Day is January 20.

“In accordance with the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, as amended, the GSA administrator ascertains the apparent successful candidate once a winner is clear based on the process laid out in the Constitution,” a GSA spokesperson told Government Executive on Friday. “The administrator’s ascertainment is done for the purposes of making services provided by the [transition act] available. Until an ascertainment is made, the statute allows for the Biden transition team to continue to receive the pre-elect services from the government (e.g., limited office space, computers, background investigations for security clearances). GSA has met all statutory requirements under the [transition act] for this election cycle and will continue to do so.”

GSA would need to ascertain a winner before Biden could send teams into the agencies, ...the funding would become available to Biden only after “the administrator ascertains an apparent winner of the general election that is not the incumbent,” said GSA.

“There don’t seem to be standards for how and when [the ascertainment] needs to happen,” Don Kettl, the Sid Richardson professor at the University of Texas at Austin’s Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, told Government Executive. “GSA has been supporting the candidates up to Election Day. The government’s support of the transition, however, can’t begin until the GSA administrator authorizes it.”

He continued, “Given the fact that there’s such discretion in the process, the core question is this: Will the administrator turn on the transition as soon as the networks call the election? If the networks call Biden as the winner, will the administrator launch the transition if the case is still in the courts? Or might the administrator, perhaps, wait until the Electoral College meets and decides, on the grounds that the decision would be contested until that vote is taken?”

Laws have been enacted over the last 20 years to give candidates more support ahead of the election and allowed for the Biden team to continue its transition work without being declared the winner on Tuesday night. Many experts and former transition officials told Government Executive they believe his team will be ready if he wins.

...in 2000––the last time there was a delay in presidential election results––lawmakers grappled with the same questions during a hearing on December 4, 2000, eight days before the Supreme Court declared George W. Bush the winner.

Who said anything about laws....much of what we do is based on norms and customs but I forgot you are the “it ain’t illegal” guy.

Take yes for an answer. I've twice said I'm fine with the transition proceeding.
This makes it 3 times. Just don't insinuate that Trump is not acting within his prerogatives.

[seacoaster]

Bringing litigation without a good faith basis in evidence is just not among his prerogatives. It is all baseless, meritless theatre for the cult.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Salty is such a pettifogging weasel. Pathetic.

Here's the testimony from the GSA in 2000 as BvG was raging in December 2000. Quite reasonable stuff under the circumstances. 2000 bears ZERO resemblance to today's situation.

The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 makes it my responsibility to "ascertain" the "apparent successful candidates" for President and Vice President before the funds, services and facilities authorized by the Act become available to the Transition Team. While the Act gives no explicit criteria or deadlines for making this ascertainment, as the legislative history demonstrates, Congress made it perfectly clear that if there is "any question" of who the winner is "in a close contest" this determination should not be made.

Under the Presidential Transition Act, GSA has no role in determining who the next President will be or affecting the contest for the Presidency. The law does not authorize me to pick the next President or predict who the next president will be. Instead, the law creates a simple, common sense requirement for me to identify the President-elect after it is clear that one candidate has won the election. In this unprecedented, incredibly close, and intensely contested election, with legal action being pursued by both sides, it is not apparent to me who the winner is. That is why I have not "ascertained" a President-elect.

https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/newsroom/c ... d-j-barram

Under the current situation, the GSA is not acting in good faith. She's wilfully breaking the law and her oath of office. The statute specifically uses the broad terms "ascertain" and "apparent" intentionally. So that the transition process would not be bogged down in Salty-esque hyper-technicalities that mean nothing and frustrate the national interest.

The GSA needs to be immediately hauled in front of Congress to explain her untenable lawless weasel position.

Is pettifogging a synonym for bootlicking?

Sheesh. Calm down. You need to adapt the Pres Elect's composure.
Are media tallies part of the process laid out in the Constitution ?
Which states have certified their results ?
I said I'm fine with the transition proceeding. You're making it sound like laws are being broken.
That's why I asked what the law says & posted this link :

https://www.govexec.com/management/2020 ... on/169854/

The major news outlets on Saturday morning declared former Vice President Joe Biden the victor of the presidential election, but the transition process cannot formally begin until the head of the General Services Administration gives the green light.

Although the final count was still being tallied over the weekend in several battleground states, Biden’s win in Pennsylvania with its 20 electoral college votes ensured he would prevail. Nonetheless, President Trump issued a statement disputing the call and said, “Beginning Monday, our campaign will start prosecuting our case in court to ensure election laws are fully upheld and the rightful winner is seated.”

The Electoral College is set to meet on December 14 and Inauguration Day is January 20.

“In accordance with the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, as amended, the GSA administrator ascertains the apparent successful candidate once a winner is clear based on the process laid out in the Constitution,” a GSA spokesperson told Government Executive on Friday. “The administrator’s ascertainment is done for the purposes of making services provided by the [transition act] available. Until an ascertainment is made, the statute allows for the Biden transition team to continue to receive the pre-elect services from the government (e.g., limited office space, computers, background investigations for security clearances). GSA has met all statutory requirements under the [transition act] for this election cycle and will continue to do so.”

GSA would need to ascertain a winner before Biden could send teams into the agencies, ...the funding would become available to Biden only after “the administrator ascertains an apparent winner of the general election that is not the incumbent,” said GSA.

“There don’t seem to be standards for how and when [the ascertainment] needs to happen,” Don Kettl, the Sid Richardson professor at the University of Texas at Austin’s Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, told Government Executive. “GSA has been supporting the candidates up to Election Day. The government’s support of the transition, however, can’t begin until the GSA administrator authorizes it.”

He continued, “Given the fact that there’s such discretion in the process, the core question is this: Will the administrator turn on the transition as soon as the networks call the election? If the networks call Biden as the winner, will the administrator launch the transition if the case is still in the courts? Or might the administrator, perhaps, wait until the Electoral College meets and decides, on the grounds that the decision would be contested until that vote is taken?”

Laws have been enacted over the last 20 years to give candidates more support ahead of the election and allowed for the Biden team to continue its transition work without being declared the winner on Tuesday night. Many experts and former transition officials told Government Executive they believe his team will be ready if he wins.

...in 2000––the last time there was a delay in presidential election results––lawmakers grappled with the same questions during a hearing on December 4, 2000, eight days before the Supreme Court declared George W. Bush the winner.

Who said anything about laws....much of what we do is based on norms and customs but I forgot you are the “it ain’t illegal” guy.

Take yes for an answer. I've twice said I'm fine with the transition proceeding.
This makes it 3 times. Just don't insinuate that Trump is not acting within his prerogatives.

He’s acting like the loser that he is. Good riddance.

[a fan]

..& unless there are significant cases of fraud uncovered now, there will be no basis for this claim, & the results of any recounts, audits or legal challenges conducted now can be used to debunk those complaints.

OS, for heaven's sake. 70% of Republicans think that the vote is fraudulent. They're gonna take that poll again in a few months, as you know.

Wanna wager what that poll says after the votes have been verified?

That's my point -- this is a unique opportunity, a large experimental trial, to refine the process. Don't flush it down the drain without seizing the opportunity to examine, analyze it & refine the process going forward.

You're telling me that you don't know that every single Sec of State, and every single County and City Clerk in America does a post mortem after every election?

What do you think these people do over the next two years, before the next election?

It will be debated, then decided, in State Legislatures around the country.
The more facts (as opposed to opinion polls) they have to work with, the better the outcome.

Nonsense, and you know it. Facts mean NOTHING in TrumpLand.

Care for a gentleman's wager? I'll wager that no matter what happens from investigations into various State elections, that that 70% number of Republicans who think that the vote is fraudulent won't dip below 50% when the dust settles.

And that should make Putin REALLY happy. Nice job.

Yada, yada, yada. All that matters is what election laws the states adopt for 2022 & 2024.

Riiight. Then take my wager. Should be easy money.

Facts and logic don't matter to these people, OS. Wake up.

[kramerica.inc]

Congrats to Joe. Here’s to a prosperous and safe next 4 years.

Take 3 short minutes:

https://twitter.com/aprilbites2/status/ ... 72801?s=21

[ggait]

Just don't insinuate that Trump is not acting within his prerogatives.

Trump and his GSA toady are wilfully violating the Transition Law in bad faith. It is forking illegal!!!!!

The Transition Law specifically talks about ascertainment and apparent. Those vague terms were express congressional intent -- that the transition should proceed in advance of the mechanical steps regarding certifications and EC administrivia:

Instead, the law creates a simple, common sense requirement for me to identify the President-elect after it is clear that one candidate has won the election.

This ain't 2000. The winner is clear. Much more clear than in 2016. The GSA is simply refusing to let the president-elect proceed with the transition to avoid hurting the loser's feelings. That is ILLEGAL!!!!!

Certifying the ascertainment does not preclude Trump from pursuing his pointless recounts and court cases out of ego or whatever inappropriate motive he has.

[Typical Lax Dad]

For the first time in my life, I scrolled through Donald Trump’s twitter feed. I vastly under estimated just how much of a loser that dude is! Grown men “follow” him? Un F’n Believable!! He has the mentality of a 12 year old.

[jhu72]

I'm not saying "my side is without sin" (whatever that means, in your nuance free universe).

I see. So you're the only one who gets to make sweeping generalizations, and pretend that the *ssholes in Antifa are the same thing as Democrats.

It does not justify the rioting, looting, burning out or cities, or random murders in retribution.
...or accepting, enabling or making excuses for them.

Yeah, but you're holding the Dems accountable for the actions of fringe elements.

This mean that YOU are accountable for neo-Nazis that support Trump?

Of course not. So stop with this stuff.

Look at how the Dems are now distancing themselves from defunding the police.

See? Now you're stuck. You just told me that the Dems support and enable fringe elements.

Clearly not. If they did, they'd embrace the phrase Defund the Police.

Its an election year, so the right has been working 24/7 to conflate the Dems with Antifa and arsonist.

And the left has been working 24/7 to conflate Republicans with white power ***holes.

Isn't it possible that you're both acting like idiots, and lying your *sses off?

Biden won. No riots. Where's Antifa ? Why all the plywood ? Have the Proud Boys mobilized ?

Did Biden win?
Glad to hear it.

The 'protestors' now are those tough guys Trump talked about, the bikers and the veterans and their 2nd Amendment...

Trump hasn't green-lit violence yet but he sure is stoking the animosity and grievance, the "cheating" them out of Der Leader...which direction it turns is yet to be seen.

... those cowards are just calling State Voting Commissioners and threating them with violence. Something about "this is why there is a 2nd amendment".

[jhu72]

For the first time in my life, I scrolled through Donald Trump’s twitter feed. I vastly under estimated just how much of a loser that dude is! Grown men “follow” him? Un F’n Believable!! He has the mentality of a 12 year old.

... actually I was thinking about this fact today. He clearly was not a legal candidate for President. You have to be 35 years old. I can't believe the founders did not mean "mentally and emotionally".

[jhu72]

... the Orange turd is now twittering that his loss was caused by Pfizer.

[Cooter]

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to do recounts and check out problems in the voting process. We are only in November, what's the hurry for?

[calourie]

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to do recounts and check out problems in the voting process. We are only in November, what's the hurry for?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/11/politics ... briefings/

Republican Senator Jim Langford of Olklahoma signals that he is going to raise a stink if Biden doesn't start getting national security intel info by Friday. Looks like the logjam will be breaking, and repubs are going to start having to decide which side of history they want to be on. A smooth transition regarding national security issues is one reason not to let this thing drag on pointlessly simply to placate a petulant man-child.
People can do all the vote checking they want for as long as they want to fix the system, but with the numbers skewed as emphatically as they are towards Biden there is no numbers related reason not to acknowledge that he is the POTUS-elect in the meantime and to treat him as such.

Saw a recent poll wherein 97% of the people who responded think Biden won and Trump lost. We all know not to trust the polls and perhaps this one was done at Biden's acceptance event, but 97% is likely to be outside the margin of error barring that circumstance.

[Cooter]

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to do recounts and check out problems in the voting process. We are only in November, what's the hurry for?

People can do all the vote checking they want for as long as they want to fix the system, but with the numbers skewed as emphatically as they are towards Biden there is no numbers related reason not to acknowledge that he is the POTUS-elect in the meantime and to treat him as such.

I wouldn't agree with you here. There seem to be a number of states that were pretty close.

[jhu72]

The election had to be fraudulent because the military seems to have voted overwhelmingly for Biden in Michigan.