Trumpista fascists on the march

[MDlaxfan76]

So if 50% of democrats thought 2016 was tainted

42% according to that link, rounded up to "nearly half" by a math-challenged headline writer.

is "math challenged" just that, or are you insulting (personal attack, NOT allowed here ) I go with the latter. You just personally attacked a fellow poster.

and, you WILL get away with it.......like always.

aw boo freakin hoo....

RRR/ABV was just in a timeout for egregious, repeated personal attacks on various posters.
Coming out swinging?

No, ABV/RRR, CU77 was referring to the author of the article and/or the headline writer. "math-challenged" was specifically the headline writer.

[Brooklyn]

looks like the Devil did really go down to Georgia:






yup, the tweet is genuine but the board is a meme

[CU77]

I hope Meidastouch (and/or the Lincoln Project) makes it real ...

[old salt]

They were not a certification of the results.

That's literally what that was. You're not even pretending to follow what's happening, OS....just charging on, demanding some super-secret investigation is on dock next.


Now that the court cases have been dismissed, all 50 State elections are legally certified.

It's literally today's headline: "All 50 States Have Certified the 2020 Election Results"

Courts don't certify elections. They rule only on what's placed before them.
The certifications are done by the state govts, not the courts.

Constant parsing. The Courts were presented with ALL the evidence that was in support of the alleged massive fraud...and they found them to be baloney, no credible evidence of actual significant fraud, much less massive fraud. In many cases the judges were quite blunt in their dismissals...and these included GOP judges.

Counts were redone. Including in GOP run States. GOP as well as Dem Secretaries of State and Governors have consistently said there was no significant election fraud or count issues in their State.

Yes, the State governments have ALL certified each of their counts as accurate and certified the winner in each State.

All as supposed to be done under the law.

And yet that's not enough for you.
A fan is right. Doc is right.

No. afan is wrong. The courts do not certify elections. It's not parsing to point that out.

The courts must rule on the evidence which can be placed before them, in a very limited amount of time.

What constitutes "significant" election fraud or count issues ?
Does it have to be enough to have changed the outcome in national or statewide contests to be considered "significant " ?

[MDlaxfan76]

They were not a certification of the results.

That's literally what that was. You're not even pretending to follow what's happening, OS....just charging on, demanding some super-secret investigation is on dock next.


Now that the court cases have been dismissed, all 50 State elections are legally certified.

It's literally today's headline: "All 50 States Have Certified the 2020 Election Results"

Courts don't certify elections. They rule only on what's placed before them.
The certifications are done by the state govts, not the courts.

Constant parsing. The Courts were presented with ALL the evidence that was in support of the alleged massive fraud...and they found them to be baloney, no credible evidence of actual significant fraud, much less massive fraud. In many cases the judges were quite blunt in their dismissals...and these included GOP judges.

Counts were redone. Including in GOP run States. GOP as well as Dem Secretaries of State and Governors have consistently said there was no significant election fraud or count issues in their State.

Yes, the State governments have ALL certified each of their counts as accurate and certified the winner in each State.

All as supposed to be done under the law.

And yet that's not enough for you.
A fan is right. Doc is right.

No. afan is wrong. The courts do not certify elections. It's not parsing to point that out.

The courts must rule on the evidence which can be placed before them, in a very limited amount of time.

What constitutes "significant" election fraud or count issues ?
Does it have to be enough to have changed the outcome in national or statewide contests to be considered "significant " ?

The courts had jurisdiction to stop a certification, all refused to do so because the evidence presented was so disgustingly skimpy, yet the claims of the clowns who brought the cases were so outrageously exaggerated. Many of the cases drew sharp rebukes from the courts.

Deal with it.

There was no credible evidence presented of widespread fraud, certainly no instances remotely close to enough to change the course of any race in the 50 (count'em) cases presented to the courts. The processes and procedures of voting worked as intended, the only real issue, apparently, was that Biden won, both in popular vote and in the electoral count, as certified by all 50 states.

Get over it.

[old salt]

They were not a certification of the results.

That's literally what that was. You're not even pretending to follow what's happening, OS....just charging on, demanding some super-secret investigation is on dock next.


Now that the court cases have been dismissed, all 50 State elections are legally certified.

It's literally today's headline: "All 50 States Have Certified the 2020 Election Results"

Courts don't certify elections. They rule only on what's placed before them.
The certifications are done by the state govts, not the courts.

Constant parsing. The Courts were presented with ALL the evidence that was in support of the alleged massive fraud...and they found them to be baloney, no credible evidence of actual significant fraud, much less massive fraud. In many cases the judges were quite blunt in their dismissals...and these included GOP judges.

Counts were redone. Including in GOP run States. GOP as well as Dem Secretaries of State and Governors have consistently said there was no significant election fraud or count issues in their State.

Yes, the State governments have ALL certified each of their counts as accurate and certified the winner in each State.

All as supposed to be done under the law.

And yet that's not enough for you.
A fan is right. Doc is right.

No. afan is wrong. The courts do not certify elections. It's not parsing to point that out.

The courts must rule on the evidence which can be placed before them, in a very limited amount of time.

What constitutes "significant" election fraud or count issues ?
Does it have to be enough to have changed the outcome in national or statewide contests to be considered "significant " ?

The courts had jurisdiction to stop a certification, all refused to do so because the evidence presented was so disgustingly skimpy, yet the claims of the clowns who brought the cases were so outrageously exaggerated. Many of the cases drew sharp rebukes from the courts.

Deal with it.

There was no credible evidence presented of widespread fraud, certainly no instances remotely close to enough to change the course of any race in the 50 (count'em) cases presented to the courts. The processes and procedures of voting worked as intended, the only real issue, apparently, was that Biden won, both in popular vote and in the electoral count, as certified by all 50 states.

Get over it.

I agree that Biden won. I acknowledged it, accepted it & posted about it here within 12 hrs of the polls closing.
I dealt with it immediately. This is post election housekeeping.

My point (I say again) is that significant changes were hastily made in how we did this election because of covid. Some of those changes appear to be contrary to state constitutions. Some increase the opportunity for fraud or error. That needs to be examined, documented & factored into the states' lawmaking & preparations for the next election. Not swept under the rug,

[MDlaxfan76]

They were not a certification of the results.

That's literally what that was. You're not even pretending to follow what's happening, OS....just charging on, demanding some super-secret investigation is on dock next.


Now that the court cases have been dismissed, all 50 State elections are legally certified.

It's literally today's headline: "All 50 States Have Certified the 2020 Election Results"

Courts don't certify elections. They rule only on what's placed before them.
The certifications are done by the state govts, not the courts.

Constant parsing. The Courts were presented with ALL the evidence that was in support of the alleged massive fraud...and they found them to be baloney, no credible evidence of actual significant fraud, much less massive fraud. In many cases the judges were quite blunt in their dismissals...and these included GOP judges.

Counts were redone. Including in GOP run States. GOP as well as Dem Secretaries of State and Governors have consistently said there was no significant election fraud or count issues in their State.

Yes, the State governments have ALL certified each of their counts as accurate and certified the winner in each State.

All as supposed to be done under the law.

And yet that's not enough for you.
A fan is right. Doc is right.

No. afan is wrong. The courts do not certify elections. It's not parsing to point that out.

The courts must rule on the evidence which can be placed before them, in a very limited amount of time.

What constitutes "significant" election fraud or count issues ?
Does it have to be enough to have changed the outcome in national or statewide contests to be considered "significant " ?

The courts had jurisdiction to stop a certification, all refused to do so because the evidence presented was so disgustingly skimpy, yet the claims of the clowns who brought the cases were so outrageously exaggerated. Many of the cases drew sharp rebukes from the courts.

Deal with it.

There was no credible evidence presented of widespread fraud, certainly no instances remotely close to enough to change the course of any race in the 50 (count'em) cases presented to the courts. The processes and procedures of voting worked as intended, the only real issue, apparently, was that Biden won, both in popular vote and in the electoral count, as certified by all 50 states.

Get over it.

I agree that Biden won. I acknowledged it, accepted it & posted about it here within 12 hrs of the polls closing.
I dealt with it immediately. This is post election housekeeping.

My point (I say again) is that significant changes were hastily made in how we did this election because of covid. Some of those changes appear to be contrary to state constitutions. Some increase the opportunity for fraud or error. That needs to be examined, documented & factored into the states' lawmaking & preparations for the next election. Not swept under the rug,

Whoa, you knew within 12 hours of the polls closing that Biden had definitely won and you said so? Heck, I was rooting for the guy but wasn't THAT certain.

Nope...you keep alleging that there was substantial fraud being 'swept under the rug'...and that's the BS you're getting called out on.

The notion that ANY of the rules regarding the election were unconstitutional for any state is specious, and if any such were truly at issue, those cases should have been brought in the numerous months prior to the election, not the last moment or post election.

That said, I have no issue with legislatures grappling with how they'd like to run elections going forward. I'm for making voting easier, on more days, and in more ways, all with appropriate risk mitigation measures to ensure an accurate count.

For instance, I think Texas should have far more drop boxes, especially in densely populated areas, and more access to mail-in/drop box voting, as well as more days of early voting...heck, I'd be particularly pleased if they didn't allow polling places to force people into lines for the voting machines assigned to their party registration...

[old salt]

They were not a certification of the results.

That's literally what that was. You're not even pretending to follow what's happening, OS....just charging on, demanding some super-secret investigation is on dock next.


Now that the court cases have been dismissed, all 50 State elections are legally certified.

It's literally today's headline: "All 50 States Have Certified the 2020 Election Results"

Courts don't certify elections. They rule only on what's placed before them.
The certifications are done by the state govts, not the courts.

Constant parsing. The Courts were presented with ALL the evidence that was in support of the alleged massive fraud...and they found them to be baloney, no credible evidence of actual significant fraud, much less massive fraud. In many cases the judges were quite blunt in their dismissals...and these included GOP judges.

Counts were redone. Including in GOP run States. GOP as well as Dem Secretaries of State and Governors have consistently said there was no significant election fraud or count issues in their State.

Yes, the State governments have ALL certified each of their counts as accurate and certified the winner in each State.

All as supposed to be done under the law.

And yet that's not enough for you.
A fan is right. Doc is right.

No. afan is wrong. The courts do not certify elections. It's not parsing to point that out.

The courts must rule on the evidence which can be placed before them, in a very limited amount of time.

What constitutes "significant" election fraud or count issues ?
Does it have to be enough to have changed the outcome in national or statewide contests to be considered "significant " ?

The courts had jurisdiction to stop a certification, all refused to do so because the evidence presented was so disgustingly skimpy, yet the claims of the clowns who brought the cases were so outrageously exaggerated. Many of the cases drew sharp rebukes from the courts.

Deal with it.

There was no credible evidence presented of widespread fraud, certainly no instances remotely close to enough to change the course of any race in the 50 (count'em) cases presented to the courts. The processes and procedures of voting worked as intended, the only real issue, apparently, was that Biden won, both in popular vote and in the electoral count, as certified by all 50 states.

Get over it.

I agree that Biden won. I acknowledged it, accepted it & posted about it here within 12 hrs of the polls closing.
I dealt with it immediately. This is post election housekeeping.

My point (I say again) is that significant changes were hastily made in how we did this election because of covid. Some of those changes appear to be contrary to state constitutions. Some increase the opportunity for fraud or error. That needs to be examined, documented & factored into the states' lawmaking & preparations for the next election. Not swept under the rug,

Whoa, you knew within 12 hours of the polls closing that Biden had definitely won and you said so? Heck, I was rooting for the guy but wasn't THAT certain.

Nope...you keep alleging that there was substantial fraud being 'swept under the rug'...and that's the BS you're getting called out on.

The notion that ANY of the rules regarding the election were unconstitutional for any state is specious, and if any such were truly at issue, those cases should have been brought in the numerous months prior to the election, not the last moment or post election.

That said, I have no issue with legislatures grappling with how they'd like to run elections going forward. I'm for making voting easier, on more days, and in more ways, all with appropriate risk mitigation measures to ensure an accurate count.

For instance, I think Texas should have far more drop boxes, especially in densely populated areas, and more access to mail-in/drop box voting, as well as more days of early voting...heck, I'd be particularly pleased if they didn't allow polling places to force people into lines for the voting machines assigned to their party registration...

When FNC called AZ for Biden, I saw his road to 270 & was never confident Trump would win. Then overnight, (as predicted) the big city mail in ballot counts came in for Biden in WI, MI, & PA. By 9 am Wed, I knew it was Biden's & reflected that in all my subsequent posts. I've never asserted that Trump won, or should have.

I have my own ideas about why & where Trump lost the voters he needed to hold the swing states he won in 2016, but lost in 2020.
I'll wait for the pundits & pollsters to analyze it further.

[CU77]

I'm for making voting easier, on more days, and in more ways, all with appropriate risk mitigation measures to ensure an accurate count.

For instance, I think Texas should have far more drop boxes, especially in densely populated areas, and more access to mail-in/drop box voting, as well as more days of early voting...heck, I'd be particularly pleased if they didn't allow polling places to force people into lines for the voting machines assigned to their party registration...

Well that's not exactly what the trumpista party is planning:

The Georgia state senators pledged on Tuesday to eliminate no-excuse absentee voting, require a photo ID to obtain a ballot, outlaw drop boxes and scrap a court agreement to quickly tell voters about signature problems on ballots so that they could be fixed.

Republicans were pressing that cause on other fronts as well: The national and state parties filed a lawsuit in Atlanta seeking to curtail the use of drop boxes in next month’s runoff elections for the U.S. Senate. The suit claimed it was illegal to let absentee voters deposit ballots after business hours.

Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican and a frequent target of Mr. Trump for not taking steps to overturn the election results, renewed an earlier call for a recheck of signatures on mail ballots after a Trump volunteer falsely claimed at a State Senate hearing that a video showed workers retrieving “suitcases” of ballots from under a table after observers left. Election officials said the video showed routine tabulation work.

And Georgia has company. In Pennsylvania, Republicans preparing for the legislative session that convenes on Jan. 11 are seeking co-sponsors for bills to stiffen identification requirements for mail ballots, tighten standards for signature matching and, in one case, to repeal the law that allows anyone to vote absentee without an excuse.

Michigan Republicans have signaled that they want to review a 2018 ballot initiative approved by two-thirds of voters that authorized no-excuse absentee balloting as well as same-day registration and straight-ticket voting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/us/m ... entee.html

[CU77]

Steve Schmidt: ‘106 members of Congress broke faith with American democracy’

“we’re one election away from losing the country to people who do not believe in democracy.”

https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/wat ... 7522757977

[CU77]

The Real Threat of Trump’s Latest Doomed Plea to the Supreme Court
...
We should not take the radicalization of conservative lawyers lightly. The attorneys general backing Trump will not disappear from the political scene alongside Trump. Nor will their aides, many of whom are fellow Federalist Society members with aspirations for higher office. (A large number of Trump’s political and judicial nominees spent time in a GOP attorney general’s office.) These lawyers represent the next generation of the Republican Party, and they have no qualms about disenfranchising 80 million Americans to seize the presidency. Trump will leave office in January. But the attorneys general who are aiding his failed coup are just getting started.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... l-war.html

[admin]

Stuff your tin foil hat up your ass & pay attention. I'm telling you what needs to be done to reduce that 70%

Old Salt, tone it down.

[MDlaxfan76]

I'm for making voting easier, on more days, and in more ways, all with appropriate risk mitigation measures to ensure an accurate count.

For instance, I think Texas should have far more drop boxes, especially in densely populated areas, and more access to mail-in/drop box voting, as well as more days of early voting...heck, I'd be particularly pleased if they didn't allow polling places to force people into lines for the voting machines assigned to their party registration...

Well that's not exactly what the trumpista party is planning:

The Georgia state senators pledged on Tuesday to eliminate no-excuse absentee voting, require a photo ID to obtain a ballot, outlaw drop boxes and scrap a court agreement to quickly tell voters about signature problems on ballots so that they could be fixed.

Republicans were pressing that cause on other fronts as well: The national and state parties filed a lawsuit in Atlanta seeking to curtail the use of drop boxes in next month’s runoff elections for the U.S. Senate. The suit claimed it was illegal to let absentee voters deposit ballots after business hours.

Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican and a frequent target of Mr. Trump for not taking steps to overturn the election results, renewed an earlier call for a recheck of signatures on mail ballots after a Trump volunteer falsely claimed at a State Senate hearing that a video showed workers retrieving “suitcases” of ballots from under a table after observers left. Election officials said the video showed routine tabulation work.

And Georgia has company. In Pennsylvania, Republicans preparing for the legislative session that convenes on Jan. 11 are seeking co-sponsors for bills to stiffen identification requirements for mail ballots, tighten standards for signature matching and, in one case, to repeal the law that allows anyone to vote absentee without an excuse.

Michigan Republicans have signaled that they want to review a 2018 ballot initiative approved by two-thirds of voters that authorized no-excuse absentee balloting as well as same-day registration and straight-ticket voting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/us/m ... entee.html

Yup, but (under Texas logic) I think my state, Maryland, should sue Texas because they don't do what I suggest above and thus disenfranchise millions of eligible voters who wanted to vote but were prevented from doing so, and clearly, obviously, Texas would then have voted for my preferred candidates. Heck it's not clear that Texas didn't have massive fraud caused by the voting machines one party used to vote not functioning with a count and the ones the other party used giving double votes...Prove that didn't happen!

[MDlaxfan76]

They were not a certification of the results.

That's literally what that was. You're not even pretending to follow what's happening, OS....just charging on, demanding some super-secret investigation is on dock next.


Now that the court cases have been dismissed, all 50 State elections are legally certified.

It's literally today's headline: "All 50 States Have Certified the 2020 Election Results"

Courts don't certify elections. They rule only on what's placed before them.
The certifications are done by the state govts, not the courts.

Constant parsing. The Courts were presented with ALL the evidence that was in support of the alleged massive fraud...and they found them to be baloney, no credible evidence of actual significant fraud, much less massive fraud. In many cases the judges were quite blunt in their dismissals...and these included GOP judges.

Counts were redone. Including in GOP run States. GOP as well as Dem Secretaries of State and Governors have consistently said there was no significant election fraud or count issues in their State.

Yes, the State governments have ALL certified each of their counts as accurate and certified the winner in each State.

All as supposed to be done under the law.

And yet that's not enough for you.
A fan is right. Doc is right.

No. afan is wrong. The courts do not certify elections. It's not parsing to point that out.

The courts must rule on the evidence which can be placed before them, in a very limited amount of time.

What constitutes "significant" election fraud or count issues ?
Does it have to be enough to have changed the outcome in national or statewide contests to be considered "significant " ?

The courts had jurisdiction to stop a certification, all refused to do so because the evidence presented was so disgustingly skimpy, yet the claims of the clowns who brought the cases were so outrageously exaggerated. Many of the cases drew sharp rebukes from the courts.

Deal with it.

There was no credible evidence presented of widespread fraud, certainly no instances remotely close to enough to change the course of any race in the 50 (count'em) cases presented to the courts. The processes and procedures of voting worked as intended, the only real issue, apparently, was that Biden won, both in popular vote and in the electoral count, as certified by all 50 states.

Get over it.

I agree that Biden won. I acknowledged it, accepted it & posted about it here within 12 hrs of the polls closing.
I dealt with it immediately. This is post election housekeeping.

My point (I say again) is that significant changes were hastily made in how we did this election because of covid. Some of those changes appear to be contrary to state constitutions. Some increase the opportunity for fraud or error. That needs to be examined, documented & factored into the states' lawmaking & preparations for the next election. Not swept under the rug,

Whoa, you knew within 12 hours of the polls closing that Biden had definitely won and you said so? Heck, I was rooting for the guy but wasn't THAT certain.

Nope...you keep alleging that there was substantial fraud being 'swept under the rug'...and that's the BS you're getting called out on.

The notion that ANY of the rules regarding the election were unconstitutional for any state is specious, and if any such were truly at issue, those cases should have been brought in the numerous months prior to the election, not the last moment or post election.

That said, I have no issue with legislatures grappling with how they'd like to run elections going forward. I'm for making voting easier, on more days, and in more ways, all with appropriate risk mitigation measures to ensure an accurate count.

For instance, I think Texas should have far more drop boxes, especially in densely populated areas, and more access to mail-in/drop box voting, as well as more days of early voting...heck, I'd be particularly pleased if they didn't allow polling places to force people into lines for the voting machines assigned to their party registration...

When FNC called AZ for Biden, I saw his road to 270 & was never confident Trump would win. Then overnight, (as predicted) the big city mail in ballot counts came in for Biden in WI, MI, & PA. By 9 am Wed, I knew it was Biden's & reflected that in all my subsequent posts. I've never asserted that Trump won, or should have.

I have my own ideas about why & where Trump lost the voters he needed to hold the swing states he won in 2016, but lost in 2020.
I'll wait for the pundits & pollsters to analyze it further.

I've reviewed your posts and see no evidence that you acknowledged anything more than the possibility that Trump hadn't won, a far cry from acknowledging that Biden definitely had won...that's ok, most of us were unsure at that point (Wed AM), though we were clear as to the expectation that the bulk of votes not yet counted would be Dem mail-in votes not counted because the GOP legislatures didn't allow their count until after polls closed. As had been predicted.

Most of us were surprised by the magnitude of the Trump vote, how the count was likely closer in several key states, and that Florida dropped to Trump early. So, we needed to see more votes counted before breathing easier about a Biden win.

As I said, I'm fine with states looking at how to ensure as many voters are able to easily and conveniently vote as possible, validly. Likewise, I'm fine with states continuously improving their fraud detection mechanisms and processes to continue to prevent widespread fraud. And I'm fine with stiff penalties for those who commit fraud...I'd also like to see some stiff penalties for those who falsely allege such fraud or who threaten election officials and volunteers in any way.

[CU77]

The long march of the trumpista fascists continues:

Wisconsin Republicans cast about for ways to flip the state for Trump in an hourslong hearing.

In a hearing that suggested Wisconsin faced election interference from the dead dictators Hugo Chavez and Joseph Stalin, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, and Kanye West, Republicans heard from aggrieved President Trump supporters who offered an array of conspiracy theories to argue that Mr. Trump was the rightful winner of the state’s election he lost by 20,000 votes.
...
It was the latest instance of Republican lawmakers in a battleground state amplifying false claims of fraud while seeking to disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters in the lawmakers’ continuing effort to retroactively deliver the 2020 election to Mr. Trump.

Republican lawmakers who sought an avenue for appointing Mr. Trump’s slate of Electoral College members were told explicitly by the legislature’s lawyer that such a maneuver is not legally possible because state law gave that authority to the Wisconsin Elections Commission, which had already certified Mr. Biden the winner.

“I do not think simply having one lawyer say one thing makes it so,” said Shae Sortwell, a Republican state assemblyman. “It hasn’t been done before — it doesn’t mean it can’t be done.”

There was little new evidence presented five hours and 10 witnesses into the hearing, and even Mr. Trump’s attorney, who stated the president’s case for overturning the results of the election in Wisconsin, said his argument did not depend on finding systemic fraud.
...
Most Democrats on the committee announced they were leaving three hours into the hearing because they had not been allowed to question witnesses. Most of them attended via video and complained that the Republicans refused to unmute them.

“This hearing is a sham,” said JoCasta Zamarripa, a Democratic assemblywoman from Milwaukee.

Dean Knudson, a Republican on the bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission, repeated his contention that there had been no “credible evidence of large-scale voter fraud in Wisconsin.”

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/12/11 ... ng-hearing

[seacoaster]

The long march of the trumpista fascists continues:

Wisconsin Republicans cast about for ways to flip the state for Trump in an hourslong hearing.

In a hearing that suggested Wisconsin faced election interference from the dead dictators Hugo Chavez and Joseph Stalin, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, and Kanye West, Republicans heard from aggrieved President Trump supporters who offered an array of conspiracy theories to argue that Mr. Trump was the rightful winner of the state’s election he lost by 20,000 votes.
...
It was the latest instance of Republican lawmakers in a battleground state amplifying false claims of fraud while seeking to disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters in the lawmakers’ continuing effort to retroactively deliver the 2020 election to Mr. Trump.

Republican lawmakers who sought an avenue for appointing Mr. Trump’s slate of Electoral College members were told explicitly by the legislature’s lawyer that such a maneuver is not legally possible because state law gave that authority to the Wisconsin Elections Commission, which had already certified Mr. Biden the winner.

“I do not think simply having one lawyer say one thing makes it so,” said Shae Sortwell, a Republican state assemblyman. “It hasn’t been done before — it doesn’t mean it can’t be done.”

There was little new evidence presented five hours and 10 witnesses into the hearing, and even Mr. Trump’s attorney, who stated the president’s case for overturning the results of the election in Wisconsin, said his argument did not depend on finding systemic fraud.
...
Most Democrats on the committee announced they were leaving three hours into the hearing because they had not been allowed to question witnesses. Most of them attended via video and complained that the Republicans refused to unmute them.

“This hearing is a sham,” said JoCasta Zamarripa, a Democratic assemblywoman from Milwaukee.

Dean Knudson, a Republican on the bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission, repeated his contention that there had been no “credible evidence of large-scale voter fraud in Wisconsin.”

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/12/11 ... ng-hearing

Perfectly normal. If you don’t like allowing people to vote, and are not inclined to count the votes once cast, especially if there’s a chance that the votes might be for Democrats.

[old salt]

I've reviewed your posts and see no evidence that you acknowledged anything more than the possibility that Trump hadn't won, a far cry from acknowledging that Biden definitely had won...that's ok, most of us were unsure at that point (Wed AM),

Nobody could be definite at that point, but look what I predicted @ 08:55am the day after the election.
I predicted the likey outcome & how Pres Biden would govern.
That acknowledges acceptance of a likely Biden win, at that point.

Morning Joe is hilarious. The Dems & Never-Trumpers are stupified. They got run over by a p/u truck caravan.
Even if Biden pulls it out, he'll have to deal with Mitch's Senate & a House with more (R)'s ...just like Nunes & Jordan warned.
If Trump loses, he'll retreat to Mar a Largo, set up his shadow govt in exile, Tweet, rally & dominate the media, without the bother of governing.
He'll bring his Trump 757 out of the hangar & continue his airport rally barnstorming.
....& he still has a few months in office without the excuse of an election to restrain Barr & Durham.
It's going to be a fascinating 3 mos ahead. Break out the plywood & board up the windows, if you haven't already.

So in other words the record number of voters positively confirmed that this is a divided nation, and that our two party system works in an us v them mode that is unwilling to work together, which ultimately defines klusterrphuck. Nice.

Not necessarily. If Biden gets to 270 without needing PA, by winning AZ, NV, WI, MI & the split votes in NEB & ME, Trump won't have a case to take to SCOTUS (it's based on PA). Trump won't have a path to 270 & he'll be pressured to concede.
The Dem's crazies will be chastened & Biden can show us he's a bi-partisan moderate by working with Mitch & a closely divided House.
Biden, Pelosi & Schumer will have reason to marginalize their hard left crazies.
Even though it would be a (D) win, they won't have a mandate & will have to work with Trump supporters.

[MDlaxfan76]

I've reviewed your posts and see no evidence that you acknowledged anything more than the possibility that Trump hadn't won, a far cry from acknowledging that Biden definitely had won...that's ok, most of us were unsure at that point (Wed AM),

Nobody could be definite at that point, but look what I predicted @ 08:55am the day after the election.
I predicted the likey outcome & how Pres Biden would govern.
That acknowledges acceptance of a likely Biden win, at that point.

Morning Joe is hilarious. The Dems & Never-Trumpers are stupified. They got run over by a p/u truck caravan.
Even if Biden pulls it out, he'll have to deal with Mitch's Senate & a House with more (R)'s ...just like Nunes & Jordan warned.
If Trump loses, he'll retreat to Mar a Largo, set up his shadow govt in exile, Tweet, rally & dominate the media, without the bother of governing.
He'll bring his Trump 757 out of the hangar & continue his airport rally barnstorming.
....& he still has a few months in office without the excuse of an election to restrain Barr & Durham.
It's going to be a fascinating 3 mos ahead. Break out the plywood & board up the windows, if you haven't already.

So in other words the record number of voters positively confirmed that this is a divided nation, and that our two party system works in an us v them mode that is unwilling to work together, which ultimately defines klusterrphuck. Nice.

Not necessarily. If Biden gets to 270 without needing PA, by winning AZ, NV, WI, MI & the split votes in NEB & ME, Trump won't have a case to take to SCOTUS (it's based on PA). Trump won't have a path to 270 & he'll be pressured to concede.
The Dem's crazies will be chastened & Biden can show us he's a bi-partisan moderate by working with Mitch & a closely divided House.
Biden, Pelosi & Schumer will have reason to marginalize their hard left crazies.
Even though it would be a (D) win, they won't have a mandate & will have to work with Trump supporters.

Yes, that's the post that came closest...but certainly not a certainty that Trump had lost or that Biden had definitely won...you simply allowed for the possibility. But as I said, none of us really could be sure at that point, though it did look likely that Biden had won, IF the mail in vote counts came in as expected.

You got some of the other predictions right, some wrong...Trump certainly hasn't been 'pressured to concede" at least not pressure from the GOP.

[Brooklyn]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1337835480101122050


Trump ultra fascists scream:


Nick Fuentes to Trump Supporters: “We are going to destroy the GOP” (for its failure to keep Trump in power)

MAGA crowd chants:

“Destroy the GOP! Destroy the GOP! destroy the GOP!”





Petey's beloved party hates its own membership.

[PizzaSnake]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1337835480101122050


Trump ultra fascists scream:


Nick Fuentes to Trump Supporters: “We are going to destroy the GOP” (for its failure to keep Trump in power)

MAGA crowd chants:

“Destroy the GOP! Destroy the GOP! destroy the GOP!”

Haven’t they already?




Petey's beloved party hates its own membership.