The election can’t be ‘stolen.’ But something worse is happening.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Clearly, the plot to “steal” an election exists only in Trump’s twisted mind. There is no “there” there. But what is going on is something equally sinister: Trump is receiving support from a range of Republican figures, including Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who says congratulations to Biden are premature; a flock of members of Congress from Georgia, who baselessly attack their state’s Republican secretary of state and inexplicably claim their own election victories valid while Biden’s is fraudulent; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who declares the transition will be to a “second Trump administration”; and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who perpetuates the fiction that the outcome is in dispute. The aim is not to steal an election, but to sow doubt about the legitimacy of our democracy — just as the Russians intend. These Republicans aim to keep their base in a constant state of anger and crazed denial. Right-wing media fan the flames; right-wing social media groups pour gasoline on the fire.
It is no consolation, indeed it is worse, that McConnell and the rest almost certainly know Trump’s claims are a joke and incapable of overturning an election. They apparently are willing to damage democracy and further divide the country so as to cast the lawful winner as an illegitimate president and avoid Trump’s wrath. Other democracies looking on will be horrified; dictators will find vindication in Republicans’ refusal to accept the results of the election.
CNN’s Jake Tapper explains the insanity and destructive nature of the Republicans’ election denial:
“This thing is done,” Tapper says. He reports that Republicans say it is all about “walking President Trump through this process,” but they cannot say that publicly for fear of Trump and of death threats from his supporters. For a party that used to deplore claims of victimhood, conspiring to prevent its leader from further melting down is downright pathetic.
The good news is that voters are not falling for it, according to a Reuters-Ipsos poll conducted after the race was called on Saturday reports. Reuters reports: “Nearly 80% of Americans, including more than half of Republicans, recognize President-elect Joe Biden as the winner of the Nov. 3 election after most media organizations called the race for the Democrat based on his leads in critical battleground states.” The bad news is that Republicans are hoodwinking 20 percent of voters, many of whom seem to be confused about the results: “13% said the election has not yet been decided, 3% said Trump won and 5% said they do not know.”
The only entity that is discredited — and certainly should not be trusted to control the Senate — is the Republican Party, whose leaders’ conduct is anti-democratic, immoral, dishonest and dangerous. They are proving the point that many Never Trumpers have made: They have lost the moral authority to govern, and no politician who is engaging in this farce (either inside the administration or on the outside) should be entrusted with power or rewarded with a plum job for their “service.” It would serve the interests of the country, which needs a two-party system, and the rump group of decent Republican politicians and voters (easily identified now by their recognition of Biden’s victory) to abandon the shell of a discredited party and start over. The Republican Party’s “brand” is permanently sullied.
Why not call whatever comes along the Conservative Reality Party? Such a body could set a precondition that its members do not create a fictional universe and undermine the political system because they are too cowardly to stand up to a man-baby’s temper tantrum. In other words, they have to accept reality and respect democracy before they can credibly advance ideas.
There are Senate runoff elections coming up in Georgia in January. Voters there can do the country — and, frankly, decent and honorable Republicans — a service by refusing to send two of the worst actors in this horror show, Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, back to the Senate. Perdue and Loeffler are actively trying to undermine the election results by demanding the Republican secretary of state resign. Propounding the Big Lie because they think it will carry them to victory should disqualify them from office.
Enough. End the reward system in which craziness, lying and authoritarian propaganda is the ticket to Republicans’ political success. Remember the few who acted honestly and honorably; any future for their party rests with them.
Tags
Who is online
539 visitors
Here is a theory I heard today.
The Republicans need to keep Trump engaged enough to care about the Georgia senate elections in January so that he will try and inspire his fans in Georgia to turn out. The way to keep him interested in Georgia is to keep telling him he was cheated out of the election.
I think the real answer is Trump has always gotten his way by cheating and lying , so why stop now?
dictators will find vindication in Republicans’ refusal to accept the results of the election.
The Dems refused to accept the results of the 2016 election.
What's your point?
That's simply not true. Hillary conceded, just as our democratic tradition requires. Neither she nor any senior Democrat ever suggested that Trump was not the legitimate President.
Do you remember something else?
Hillary Clinton on Trump’s Election: “There Are Lots of Questions About Its Legitimacy”
John Lewis: Trump is not a 'legitimate' president
Re-read your links, and then come back with specific quotations that correspond to what I said.
I looked at your links. Neither Clinton nor Lewis ever questions Trump's legitimacy as President.
You seriously don't get that from the headlines?
Like this?
Or this?
What more do you think you need?
For pity's sake! A politician's words must be parsed.
Lewis makes it clear that he is giving his opinion. Which has the same value as anyone's.
Clinton cites questions about the election. She makes no affirmations about the election... and doesn't even mention Trump.
Politicians are word weavers. You must be precise with them.
But you said..............
And you turn that into just giving his opinion? WTH do you think was being referenced? Do you have a back up alarm when walking back a comment/question that you were wrong on?
OK. Lewis gave his personal opinion that Trump was not a legitimate President.
Is John Lewis's personal opinion important to you?
Really, so the Democrats in Congress, the leftist media, and the TDS driven leftist lemming followers accepted the results of the election?
Try the hell again. "Russia, Russia, Russia"; "Collusion, Collusion, Collusion", "Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine", and "Impeach, Impeach, Impeach". It started before Trump even took office and has never stopped. Each repeatedly proven to be false; but the left still says them like a prayer every damn day.
The Democrats can take a flying leap. Trump has two more months in office- then it will be time to tear Joe the fuck apart. I expect Republicans to treat him the same damn way Democrats have treated the "Deplorables" for the last 5 years. If they need reminders I am sure their constituents will be more than happy to provide them.
Yes. Sometimes not with the best grace, but hey!
There were no pointless trips to the courts to try to overthrow the result.
Do you see the difference, now?
------
Impeachment is a different thing. Pelosi did not want it? She did everything possible to avoid it. (Probably because she knew it was pointless with a Republican Senate that would have aquitted Trump of shooting someone on Fifth Avenue.) Ultimately, when it became clear that Trump was guilty as sin... she gave in and allowed the indictment. Things then went as she (and all lucid observers) knew they would. The Senate ignored the proof and acquitted.
----------
The interesting thing about your post is that clearly you don't care what Biden does. You will oppose him regardless.
That is to say... you are determined to do exactly as you criticize the Dems for doing.
that's a good one
That's pretty damn funny.
the Republican party has become a traitorously tagged trophy of Putin, pathetic, and if not so damn serious, laughable, as the gullibility of some has begun the undone, and undone this "United" States has become, and ignorance ruling was not meant to be fun E in any matter, just an observation i observed from my publicly funded private observation station that moves,
me, and others to weird places without a place mat, to wipe Matts' feet on, or others, who can't accept Defeat, quite the...
What is up with all the changes in the Defense Dept. ?
Are they planning to try and use force to keep Trump in power?
Good thing our US generals will not play along.
he aim is not to steal an election, but to sow doubt about the legitimacy of our democracy
Paging Hillary Clinton supporters.. Let's see if Trump supporters left in the government continue to follow the Democrats game plan from 2016 and form a "resistance" to promote this theme like in 2017.
What can I help you with, dear?
Steady as she goes. Just keep our eyes on the prize. Disregard the noisy agitators banging cymbals and throwing empty cans down a wind-swept street! Focus on the Senate: Win/Fund/Sent/Call Georgia relatives, friends, and associates!
Focus on the Senate:
Democrats going all out for a Reverend Wright apologist who was arrested for interfering with a child abuse investigation.
The anti semtism might play well with the Democratic base, but even they might recoil at interfering with a child abuse investigation.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Nor is it consistent for you to "damn" a democrat while supporting the BS Donald Trump is putting out everyday. That said, feel free to make an argument.
Good seed, John.
Um, Democrats have been doing that for four years. Hillary Clinton, CNN, MSNBC, and so on have been telling anyone who will listen that Trump is president because of Russian interference, not because the American people actually wanted him to be president. What’s more, he’s a Russian agent, dontchaknow. And they’re still claiming Stacey Abrams had her election stolen from her, what? A whole year ago? She still hasn’t conceded that race. On top of that, Republicans have been claiming for years that Republicans are actively engaged in voter suppression in many forms all around the country.
But now Republicans are the ones sowing doubt and now we should be bothered?
Hey fine with me, but let’s look at everyone, ok?
This is a really inane statement. The Russians cannot force Americans to vote for a particular candidate. What they can do is disseminate disinformation to hurt a candidate and/or help a candidate. This is exactly what they did. They spread disinformation that hurt Clinton and helped Trump. The Mueller investigation documents this meticulously. Last summer’s Senate report on Russian interference in the 2016 election says exactly the same thing. 126 million people saw garbage originated by Russian operatives.
I really do not understand this reasoning, and I really would like an explanation. I am very serious.
Here's what I don't understand:
Let's agree that candidate X did something "wrong", in a previous election. (It doesn't matter what that "something" was.)
If another candidate, let's say "candidate A", does the same thing in a later election, is that "something" still "wrong"?
If we say that candidate A's action is acceptable, mustn't we therefore revise our judgment of candidate X?
Can the same behavior be acceptable or not, depending on whether someone else has done it before?
Using one person's behavior to evaluate the behavior of someone else seems to me to lead to inextricable contradictions.
Could you help me understand?
It's not about saying A is wrong but B is not. It's about hypocrisy. Democrats have spent years "sowing doubt about the legitimacy of our democracy" (as I outlined above). And now they want to complain about Republicans doing it? That is hypocrisy whether the Republicans are actually doing it or not.
Holy cow, Tacos! If you keep saying true things like this it could spread! Then where would we be!!! Tone it down a bit before it gets out of hand.
Could you please Reply to my previous post?
Disappointing. What did Taco's really 'say' besides so many words?
"He did it first", is kindergarten a level dodge.
And besides, the Democrats never ever questioned the legitimacy of our Democracy. They questioned the legitimacy of Trump's leadership which is legitimately lacking...
What dodge? I said let's look at everyone. Do you object to that?
I think you might be wrong about that.
One-third of Clinton supporters say Trump election is not legitimate, poll finds
John Lewis: Trump is not a 'legitimate' president
One year on, Donald Trump is still an illegitimate president
Hillary Clinton on Trump’s Election: “There Are Lots of Questions About Its Legitimacy”
Did I not?
No. We have not been sowing doubt about the legitimacy of our democracy, we have been pointing to the epic incompetence, malignant narcissism, and ignorance of a president whose access to power has been tremendously advantageous to the Russians. Russians who have since 2014 been continuously promoting nonsense swallowed whole-heartedly by people on the right. Remember, the Mueller Investigation resulted in a number of convictions of Trump associates for lying. Specifically, lying about contact with the Russians. So, Mueller did not conclude that there was no collusion, the investigation was unable to determine that because of the lying.
almost like a contagious viral infection, surrounds and infects, trumpp, and those "best and brightest" he dug up from the bottom of the swamp he had to drain, to find the worst of the burst out of jail wearing single cells selling cell phones buy the pear, to the deaf, cause Trumppy does love hiim self, and those oh so sweet uneducated.
No. Let me repeat:
I really do not understand this reasoning, and I really would like an explanation. I am very serious.
Here's what I don't understand:
Let's agree that candidate X did something "wrong", in a previous election. (It doesn't matter what that "something" was.)
If another candidate, let's say "candidate A", does the same thing in a later election, is that "something" still "wrong"?
If we say that candidate A's action is acceptable, mustn't we therefore revise our judgment of candidate X?
Can the same behavior be acceptable or not, depending on whether someone else has done it before?
Using one person's behavior to evaluate the behavior of someone else seems to me to lead to inextricable contradictions.
Could you help me understand?
Trump is not mentioned.
My question is about a method. It has nothing to do with current events. Once we have examined the method, we might be able to apply it to today.
Ok, I will try to answer your questions as directly as I can.
Yes. However, whether or not the actions are "the same" is not automatically decided just because someone alleges it.
Sure, but with the same qualifier as above.
Again, all things being equal, the behavior is acceptable or not irrespective of who does it or whether it has been done before. But things are not always equal. Maybe the action we condemn now actually was ok before. Maybe the laws have changed.
It depends. One might argue that the behavior is traditional, the normal course of business, or conforms to a community or industry standard, even if it isn't explicitly enshrined in the law/rules. In such a case, it might be totally appropriate to judge one person's behavior relative to another's.
As I indicated in my first response, I think we have a problem with political opponents hypocritically attacking each other for basically doing the same things that they do themselves. But they also attack each other for these things even when it isn't actually happening - like criticizing election fraud that isn't really election fraud, or voter suppression that isn't really voter suppression.
Oh, but they most certainly have. The Democracy we have is not the one Dems want. One of the most persistent arguments against Trump as president the left has employed is that he didn't win the popular vote in 16. The democracy Dems want is one where the majority dictates. And I mean that in the sense of dictatorship. That is why Dems want the Constitution to be considered a "living" document. That way, they can make it say whatever they want it to say in order to attain their goals. This is why they are so dismayed by so many originalists on the Supreme Court.
It's completely laughable that the Dems accuse Trump of wanting to be a dictator when they themselves are doing all they can to usher in their own.
OK. Good answer. Thank you.
Donald Trump arguably (despite his confirmation biased "agents" put in place by himself - who should be ashamed of themselves getting him off temporarily, but I digress) is a liar, cheater, and thief And without regurgitating the Mueller Report ad nauseam or the Senate Intelligence Report or Putin's Singapore utterance of, 'I supported Donald over Hillary. . .,' or General McMaster writing on the 2016 election and Russian influence campaigns, and Malcolm Nance great writings on the subject of Russian hacking of the DNC using tools code-names like, "Cozy Bear" and "Fancy Bear," we don't have to try to compare Hillary Clinton, CNN, or MSNBC to what is occurring with Trump.
There are no Russians or other groups dedicating themselves to making an authoritarian "democratic" regime in the United States. Such a concept so far does not exist in the Democratic Party lexicon of ideas.
Republicans and conservatives need to 'dust themselves down' and stop attempting to project on others the toxic SHIT they do - because y'all are doing it! Donald Trump is a sorry leader in his own right - bar none. He needs to figuratively have a somebody throw a bucket of 'sanctifying water' in his face in hopes that it will wash away that lying, selfish, thieving, spirit within him.
Stacey Abrams and Bryan Kemp are a whole 'nother problem distinct from Trump's toxic BS.
QUESTION: Who are the authentic republicans and conservatives?
A. The Trump 'party.' B. The so-called, "Never Trumpers."
To quote the Democrats, it’s a big tent. Unfortunately (to my mind) much of it has been hijacked by social regressive reactionaries (I feel like “conservative” is too generous). This began roughly 40 years ago, and I don’t know how they can undo it but to rebuild or elect a leader who is old-school Republican without being another grand inquisitor.
Does any of that make sense? It’s kind of a TL;DR of what’s in my head.
I need an answer to the question as presented, please. As I have a followup question.
Honestly, I think your question doesn’t work in the way I conceptualize the party. Trump is being rejected because he is an incompetent ass, not because of his policies. If you took Trump’s platform and attached it to someone with manners and skills in government, he would win in a landslide.
(Sorry about that)
Manners? He's a pathological liar.
Oh , and a crook. and a bigot. and a moron.
Not remotely fit to be president of a great nation.
BTW his wonderful policies have almost certainly caused thousands of people to die prematurely.
And Taco you need to address JR's comment directly. Go through the assertions line by line. There is meaning there.
Thank you for being honest. However the question begs for an answer. Here's why: Starting January 20, 2021, the republican party will have a split down the middle of the two factions and onlookers like me and others need to know who/what/which side is the Republicans/Conservatives of record!
I can't discern a platform, other than tax breaks for the rich, isolationism, and ending protections for people, the land, the air, ..
Housing? nada
Education? nada
Energy? nada
???
The RNC's platform for 2020 was, quite literally, "whatever President Trump wants".
This is what the liberal media (I am sorry to use what sounds like a clichéd term, but it is what it is) always says about pretty much any Republican platform. It's an exaggeration. Just to touch on those points, though:
Tax breaks for the rich: OK, first of all, you need to be somewhat rich to pay significant taxes in the first place. The poor don't pay income tax at all. So, automatically, tax breaks are going to benefit people or corporations with higher income. This criticism of tax breaks plays on the envy that people have. There is nothing wrong with looking at the impact of higher or lower taxes. Trump said that our corporate taxes were higher than that of most competing nations, and that was actually true. He wanted to lower the taxes to keep companies in the US and maybe draw back some who had left. Is that such a crazy idea? Now, we're about average.
Isolationism: Trump is not an isolationist. The reach of American military around the world is always something we should be examining, and I see nothing wrong with trying to minimize it so that we can 1) save American lives, and 2) save money. The left in this country used to go out in the streets to protest American military in other countries. Suddenly in 2016, when Trump had the same feeling, it became "isolationist" to bring our troops home. When Obama wanted to bring troops home, he was seen as ending our nation's long dark nightmare and he was loved for it. When Trump wants to do it, he's "abandoning our allies." Same goal. Different reaction. Why? Politics.
Additionally, he has tried to improve relations with historic adversaries like Russia or North Korea. Whether he is successful or not, we should acknowledge that if Obama tried to do those things, Democrats would applaud him for trying make peace in the world. When Trump does it, he's suddenly some kind of traitor. Politics again.
Ending protections for people: I don't agree with all of his actions or the position of the party on this topic - especially as it pertains to LGBTQ+. I think the party is giving in to whiners who want to needlessly discriminate against other human beings. But this is no sacred cow, either. Sometimes, the protections that are out there are a little ridiculous. Case in point being the Obama administration's guidance on campus sexual assault cases. The accused in those cases basically had no rights to defend themselves. We should take those allegations seriously, but we should also not just assume someone is guilty and throw the book at them.
the land, the air: Yep, the Republican party has always been pro-business, anti-regulation. Even so, they have historically been willing to compromise somewhat on this. It was a Republican president, after all, who signed the EPA into existence. This is another case where things can be taken too far in either direction. Republicans sometimes are reckless about industry's impact on the environment. Other times, Democrats basically function as if you can't have too much regulation. That's not rational.
Additionally, Trump wanted to make international trade benefit the US more. I think he has genuinely tried to achieve that, and in some cases succeeded. His main concern has been China. This should not be controversial. Even Chuck Schumer encouraged him to be tough on China.
Democrats often talk about getting the rich to pay their fair share. Trump wanted our NATO partners to pay their fair share. That shouldn't be controversial either.
Trump wanted to secure the border to stem the tide of illegal immigration. That didn't used to be a controversial position. Democratic presidents Clinton and Obama both advocated for this. Trump addresses it and suddenly it's "racist." That reaction is irrational. Every country in the world tries to identify and control the people who enter. What's more, very few of them offer any kind of financial benefit or public program to such people. Who could afford it? It's simply not logical to talk about pathways to citizenship for illegal aliens while doing nothing to stop the flow of illegal immigration. We can debate about how best to do that. Maybe it's a wall and maybe it's not. But it should still be a priority.
He wanted to use our influence to help Israel, and he has done a pretty fair job of that. He moved our embassy to Jerusalem, and got three Arab countries to officially recognize Israel. That's huge, but it gets little coverage.
He has tried to prioritize reducing addiction to opioids. It gets little coverage.
He signed the First Step Act to reform federal prisons and sentencing. He signed an EO authorizing grants to reduce abusive policing practices. You never hear about it, though.
This has gotten long, but the point is there are some decent ideas - and even actions - underneath all the combed over boorishness. Now, take those ideas and actions and instead of having them come from a nincompoop like Trump, attach them to someone generally seen as at least a half-way decent person - say, a Mitt Romney, John Kasich, Nikki Haley, or Marco Rubio. I would think such a person would/should be elected easily.
I say I would think that, but then I saw how Mitt Romney was savaged when he ran, so I could be wrong. Even John McCain was treated badly and he had a history of compromise in the Senate. Only when he became anti-Trump did he get any love. Is it even possible these days for a moderate conservative to get fair treatment in the media?
An anecdote if you will... my uncle moved to the Netherlands, where his best friend had a job with Phillips Corp. and tried getting a job there on his work visa. The Netherlands only allows for 6 months for someone to find and obtain a job on a work visa. Three days after that 6 months, my uncle was being deported. It's my understanding [from talking with people I work with] that most countries overseas work in such a manner. The biggest issue in the US though is it takes so long and it's such a difficult process to become a US citizen, that it becomes discouraging for anyone attempting to do so. An Indian coworker of mine told me that he and his family renounced their citizenship in India [because they have to before starting the process of becoming citizens here] and that it will take about 10 years to get US citizenship. That's asinine that it takes that long.
Of my brief research, most European countries show an average of 4-8 years with Germany being one of the longest (8 years) and Romania being one of the shortest (4 years) with the only stipulations being understanding the Romanian language and culture. The UK shows an average of 5 years.
I asked a simple question. What Trump policies were blocked by the Dems?
Not almost certainly, CERTAINLY, tRump has over 200,000 deaths on his incompetent little hands.
He is also responsible for major job losses. HE FUCKED EVERYTHING UP, BIG TIME.
You did not ask that question.
Sorry... I guess I got some wires crossed. I must be thinking of a different thread.
bs always starts with a false premise, and here it is...
anything based on that bs assertion is pure crap.
You should rethink your assertion. Russian interference through leaking the candidates emails and through posting fake negative news stories about the candidate is way different from adding fake votes to a final vote count. You are comparing apples to bowling balls.
Do you really not see the difference, Jim?
When you (or anyone else) post a Reply like this, I have to wonder about sincerity.
The two cases are so different that to conflate them requires either stupidity of hypocrisy.
No difference Bob. No matter how much you want to make it so. What, other than ridding the nation of Trump after the fact, is different. And if you are saying that people were swayed due to propaganda, you have absolutely no confidence in the thinking ability of your "fellow travelers" if they were the stupid and switched for that reason only. The base is the base and those that wanted change back then, are no different than those who blindly are buying into the Obama infused Biden and his way.........LOL forward.
And if you are calling me either stupid or a hypocrite is just the opposite. Read it again and tell me that it isn't the case RFN
Context is a friend. Nuance is context's closest family member. And though day and night show up on a line spectrum together they operate with distinctions. So don't 'cleverly' smash things together that don't, can't, always work—but actually conflict!
I'll have Ranch dressing on that word salad. Thank you so much.
Perhaps after ingesting it, the chef would enlighten readers on what the hell that meant.
In one case, a foreign power is thought to have used fake social media accounts to influence American voters. Evidence has been supplied, but some reject it.
In the other case, the President of the United States is accusing several states of incompetence or complicity in massive election fraud, while supplying no evidence whatsoever.
Do you really see no difference?
I understand loyalty, but at some point it may destroy credibility.
Perhaps I can help.
Ideas are expressed in a given context. An idea that is valid in its context may not be valid in another.
One context is differs from another by subtle nuances. If we are not attentive to nuances, we cannot understand.
"Day" and "night" are both times. So they are of the same nature. But of course they are not the same thing.
Beware of saying that "day" and "night" are the same thing.
Don't reject it at all. Social media? LMMFAO. Since the day after election day, we here in the US had the main stream media doing the work of "furrinners" for them.
Other than mailing out ballots to every Tom Dick and Maggie on the voter rolls whether living or not? You damned right. Watch if you like. He has a real list of real names. RCP doesn't screw around when reporting. They may lean a little right but don't post unfounded crap unless true. Unlike several other "sources" that lean on "people with knowledge of the matter" who invariably "speak under conditions of anonymity because they are not authorized". Enjoy
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/11/12/tucker_carlson_yes_dead_people_did_vote_using_mail-in_ballots.html#!
One ranch dressing coming up! And would you like mayonnaise on your fish sandwich too? By the way, I simply refuse to be gas-lighted! That is, there is nothing in me that can be made to feel depressed or less than it is. Moreover, I have studied what a gaslight -attack- is in its essence. I have personal "protection spells" up and efficiently working.
It does not disturb me one iota when one or another doesn't get it here. We've just have to try harder down the 'road.' Onward!
I understand loyalty, but at some point it may destroy credibility.
My 'hero! (Thank you, Bob Nelson!) You "get" me!
OOOoooo. I am clutching my pearls on this one! Tucker Carlson of the Hunter Biden fame-shame is 'on the case'? How many dead people were there? 1000? 2000? 8,000, 10,0000? A "real clear' number up, please. I would like a best guesstimate on each state's fraudsters also, please.
None of that 'hankey pankey" one man's set of handy anecdotes. Besides all things being equal we need to see if dead people voted in the ranks of Trump! Moreover, the system 'has an app' for that! But carry on bitchin and moanin'. It's why we have courts and judges, you know.
In addition, as the Supreme Court once pronounced: There is difference between stumbling over a dog or kicking the same. Further, there is distinction between an exposure of one's nether regions through a towel uncoupling itself and fingers which manipulate the bow. NUANCE.
Homeland Security just issued a statement saying that this election was the most secure in American history.
The false flag ''dead people'' voted is BS. There have been numerous reviews on this and there is NO evidence.
The interesting part is that the only ''dead person'' voting was a guy in PA that was arrested for requesting a mail-in ballot for his DEAD mother. He was a republican.
There may be cases of people voting (in any election) as a 'last will and testimony' measure for a deceased relative or some such context. However, Trump supporters don't support that narrative for Biden suppporters. Of course, it's "OKAY!" for Trump voters. We know the deal. It's not in any numbers of thousand spread throughout the nation.
As you have stated, DHS, has stepped up and slapped the stupid 'Trumphole' politically down! We must move on our lives depend on ignoring that Trumphole in the WH. Why? Biden and the nation needs the 'air' that Trumphole is consuming!
Is that a Trump supporter newly moved on?
I saw that too. Now they can all expect to be fired. LOL
That's not a joke. The head of the agency that produced the report has stated publicly that he expects to be fired.
Bottom line here is----those in power who have something to fear should be feared. If power gives protection and when protection gives power, a democracy will fail.
I wonder if the protesters in Hong Kong are starting to wonder why they're protesting to be like America.
And meanwhile, Trudeau is organizing immigration from Hong Kong...
Why can't America ever get it right any more?
For sure both Carrie Lam and Xi Jinping would be happy to do whatever is necessary to expedite the immigration of the protesters to all the countries that have made offers to accept them.
Perhaps 'the protesters' in Hong Kong are hoping that democracy will hold and their quest for freedom will be guaranteed.
But, I do hope they understand that there are forces in America---for as yet an undefined reason---that are not sympathetic to their hopes as they are not sympathetic to the desires of many of their fellow Americans.
Right wing conservatism.
Democracy will hold? And in 2047 it will end. May as well start getting used to the inevitable - seems like a lot of wasted effort to me.
That would do it...
By 2047, China will probably run the whole world...
Not likely, Bob. China may by that time have good relationships with many countries, with mutually beneficial trade, etc, and it may be the number one economy, but I'm pretty sure that their 5 to 15 year plans are really just to look after the Chinese citizens and become a moderately prosperous society (to benefit EVERY citizen).
I first typed "will probably rule the whole world..."
I revised "rule" to "run".
I agree that China has little tradition for foreign conquest... but they'll run the world without conquering it.