Georgia poll watchers' concerns about Biden ballots appearing photocopied led to watchdog inspection

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  2 weeks ago  •  379 comments

By:   Joseph Weber (Just The News)

Georgia poll watchers' concerns about Biden ballots appearing photocopied led to watchdog inspection
Three poll watchers have sworn under penalty of perjury that the ballots looked fake.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Concerns from a polling manager in Georgia's Fulton County about the unusual uniformity of mail-in ballots is the basis for the court-delayed inspection effort that is expected to resume in the coming weeks.

Polling manager Suzi Voyles says that when counting absentee ballots for the 2020 presidential election, thousands of them, perhaps tens of thousands, for then-Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden appeared to have been photocopied.

Voyles' observation and similar ones from at least three other poll workers prompted them to come forward and swear under penalty of perjury that the ballots looked fake.

Election watchdogs have used their affidavits to help convince a state judge to unseal all of the 147,000 mail-in ballots counted in Fulton and allow a closer inspection of the suspicious Biden ballots for evidence of counterfeiting, The Epoch Times reports Tuesday.

Voyles also said she noticed that all of the ballots were printed on paper different from others she handled as part of a statewide hand recount of the presidential election.

She also said none were purportedly folded or creased, as she typically observed in mail-in ballots that had been removed from envelopes.

"All of them were strangely pristine," said Voyles, who for 20 years has monitored elections in Fulton County, which includes much of Atlanta.

The watchdogs suspect as many as tens of thousands of the ballots may have been manufactured in a race that Biden won by just 12,000 votes, in large part because of the late surge in mail-in ballots counted after election monitors were asked to leave State Farm Arena in Atlanta.

"We have what is almost surely major absentee-ballot fraud in Fulton County involving 10,000 to 20,000 probably false ballots," Garland Favorito, the lead petitioner in the case and a certified poll watcher who runs VoterGa.org, told The Epoch Times.

He and other petitioners were ordered to meet at a warehouse May 28 to settle the terms of the inspection of the absentee ballots. But the day before the scheduled meeting, the county filed a motion to dismiss the case, delaying the inspection indefinitely.

Favorito said the sides will be in court June 21 to resolve the motions. He expects talks over the logistics of the inspection to resume after the Fourth of July holiday, according to The Times.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

Taking a look at this would not change the outcome of the election, but with three poll watchers having sworn under penalty of perjury that the ballots looked fake, it deserves a look. As a matter of fact, proving that everything was fair and above board would go a long way to easing peoples concerns about the integrity of the last election. We could finally close the book on it.

So why the resistance?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago

Not hard to figure out. No matter how small an irregularity may be, it is still an irregularity. And they don't want the questions to go any further. They know there is some shit that went on.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1    2 weeks ago

You see Jim, the problem with today's new left is that it has no grass root support, thus they need shut down discussion or any questioning of their narratives.

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
1.2  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago
three poll watchers having sworn under penalty of perjury that the ballots looked fake

Quite different from swearing that the ballots were fake. I could swear that your avatar looks like Vladimir Lenin ... in fact I do, hell it even looks like Leon Trotsky.

Why the resistance? The better question is: Why the persistence? So that the book is never closed is the likely answer.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @1.2    2 weeks ago
Quite different from swearing that the ballots were fake.

That's fair enough. Shouldn't we look at them?


The better question is: Why the persistence? 

It sounds like O J Simpson.


 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
1.2.2  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    2 weeks ago
Shouldn't we look at them?

How many more times will it take, a dozen? At this point the sites you used and continue to use have set the 'steal' in already concretized minds.

So ... I'm looking at a 4 month old Gas bill that came folded in the mail and the folds are gone. I guess I shouldn't have paid it because now it 'looks' fake?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @1.2.2    2 weeks ago
How many more times will it take, a dozen?

Oh come on, this isn't a recount. This goes to the heart of the claim of voter fraud. Let us settle it here and now. Resistance implies that something is being hidden. Give the American people the courtesy of being able to ask questions.  This is not Cuba.

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
1.2.4  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    2 weeks ago
It sounds like O J Simpson

Yes it does, pretending to look for someone or something that isn't there to keep an illusion alive.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @1.2.4    2 weeks ago

Simpson initially got off because of a biased black jury. They admitted it. Later, Civil charges were filed. That was the analogy.

For the reader who got it right away - Sorry I had to spell it all out, but that's the game we have to play here.

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
1.2.7  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.3    2 weeks ago
Resistance implies that something is being hidden.

Whose resistance? There are 2 teams at play and both are resisting.

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
1.2.8  Hallux  replied to  Hallux @1.2.4    2 weeks ago
Yes it does, pretending to look for someone or something that isn't there to keep an illusion alive

For the reader who got it right away - Sorry I had to spell it all out, but that's the game we have to play here.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
1.2.9  Krishna  replied to  Hallux @1.2    2 weeks ago
in fact I do, hell it even looks like Leon Trotsky

I think he looks like Lenin.

(Trotsky was much more intelligent than that!)

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
1.2.10  Krishna  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    2 weeks ago
It sounds like O J Simpson.

But it looks like Vladimir Lenin! 

Bamboo Fibers-- I demand to see the fabled Bamboo Fibers!

(Sorry-- no Bamboo Fibers...then there's no proof of any Chinese hanky-panky!)

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.3  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago
Polling manager Suzi Voyles says that when counting absentee ballots for the 2020 presidential election, thousands of them, perhaps tens of thousands, for then-Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden appeared to have been photocopied.

Except, Suzi Voyles NEVER SAID THAT!

Her affidavit is available for review online for those who actually give a shit about FACTS and wants to confirm them for themselves. 

Oh and BTFW, you know that Voyles testified UNDER OATH in an initial court hearing to stop Georgia's election results to be certified right? Voyles didn't say a fucking thing about 'thousands of them, perhaps tens of thousands' during that testimony either. 

You've posted another seed that has easily refuted LIES in it's content. Why continue with this practice Vic? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @1.3    2 weeks ago

Thanks for the truth as always Dulay!  You know how that's frowned upon here!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.3    2 weeks ago

I'm so glad that you are here. Now all our questions can be answered.



Oh and BTFW, you know that Voyles testified UNDER OATH in an initial court hearing to stop Georgia's election results to be certified right?

And did anyone listen to her?


You've posted another seed that has easily refuted LIES in it's content.

Oh dear! Did you notice the NBC link I gave JR?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.3.3  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.2    2 weeks ago
And did anyone listen to her?

Yes, a Trump appointed Judge ruled against her and Lin Wood. 

Oh dear! Did you notice the NBC link I gave JR?

Why yes Vic, YES I did, hence my reply to it's content. 

Since NOTHING in your NBC link supports the allegations in your seed, I don't see why you even bothered. I guess that's the best story you could find by a reliable source. Yet instead of recognizing how WEAK that link is, you chose to throw it out as some kind of confirmation. Of course that dodge only works on your buddies that don't actually READ your links. 

Now, have YOU reviewed Voyles' affidavit and recognized that your seeds source LIED about what she said yet?

More than likely, even if you have you won't acknowledge it's true content because then the question would be WHY you would choose to continue to host the lie here on NT. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.4  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @1.3.3    2 weeks ago
"Since NOTHING in your NBC link supports the allegations in your seed, I don't see why you even bothered. I guess that's the best story you could find by a reliable source. Yet instead of recognizing how WEAK that link is, you chose to throw it out as some kind of confirmation. Of course that dodge only works on your buddies that don't actually READ your links."

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
1.3.5  Krishna  replied to  Dulay @1.3    2 weeks ago
Why continue with this practice Vic? 

Why not?

After all...wouldn't you do the same thing if your avatar looked like Vladimir Lenin???

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Principal
1.3.6  Raven Wing  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.1    2 weeks ago
Thanks for the truth as always Dulay!  You know how that's frowned upon here!

Only by those who hate the truth. They only believe their own lies and those of their God Trump. In their lives there is no place for truth. And they make sure they keep it that way.

 
 
 
Trotsky's Spectre
Freshman Quiet
1.4  Trotsky's Spectre  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago

'...why the resistance?'

So if there's an irregularity, it merits a look. But if there is no irregularity, it merits a look.

Why the double bind?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Trotsky's Spectre @1.4    2 weeks ago
You've posted another seed that has easily refuted LIES in it's content.

What would Stalin say?

 
 
 
Trotsky's Spectre
Freshman Quiet
1.4.2  Trotsky's Spectre  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.1    2 weeks ago

You cite Dulay's words in reply to me ... in error, I presume.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Principal
1.4.3  Raven Wing  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.1    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
1.4.4  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Raven Wing @1.4.3    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Principal
1.4.5  Raven Wing  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.4.4    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Trotsky's Spectre
Freshman Quiet
1.5  Trotsky's Spectre  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago

'...proving that everything was fair and above board would go a long way to easing peoples concerns about the integrity of the last election.'

No. It wouldn't. These 'concerns' are a destabilization tactic. It weakens the regime and fills public space with static, crowding out potential discussion of anything that matters.

Remember -- not an issue; a tactic.

 
 
 
MrFrost
PhD Principal
1.6  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago

512

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Principal
1.6.1  Raven Wing  replied to  MrFrost @1.6    2 weeks ago

Ain't that the truth. If they are so sure Biden didn't win due to the election system, then why are THEY sitting in Congress drawing a salary off the citizen's teat?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Expert
2  Greg Jones    2 weeks ago

So why the resistance?

Perhaps an element of truth in the accusation?

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Masters Participates
2.1  r.t..b...  replied to  Greg Jones @2    2 weeks ago

...numerous allegations of sexual misconduct, anyone?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  r.t..b... @2.1    2 weeks ago

Allegations don't equal crimes in the US.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Masters Participates
2.1.2  r.t..b...  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

So some allegations are situational, like some ethics. Nothing knew [sick] [[sic]].

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  r.t..b... @2.1.2    2 weeks ago

But we don't convict simply on allegations, despite what went on in the colleges under Obama.

Remember....Due process.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

Says the guy who just posted a seed full of unfounded allegations. 

You can't make this shit up...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @2.1.5    2 weeks ago

"Says the guy who just posted a seed full of unfounded allegations. 

You can't make this shit up..."

Apparently they do, all the time.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
2.1.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @2.1.5    2 weeks ago
Says the guy who just posted a seed full of unfounded allegations.

Who got convicted? Did you miss that part of .........."But we don't convict simply on allegations," and to add, unless such allegations pan out to be true after further inquiry and investigation.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.8  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.7    2 weeks ago
Who got convicted?

As of yet, no one. It's unfortunate that so many of those that signed these affidavits haven't been prosecuted for perjury. I guess the state AG's either have other fish to fry or chose who to prosecute based on ideology. 

Oh and BTFW Jim, I have convicted Vic and others in the NT court of public opinion  many times. I've already done so in the first thread of this seed. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
2.1.9  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @2.1.8    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]  Your nit picky, word parsing, and just plain negativity is extremely tiring and boring and most choose to move along and let you have your self perceived victory  THAT is all and THAT is a fact. Own it.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Masters Participates
2.1.10  r.t..b...  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.3    2 weeks ago

“Remember...Due process.”

Important to remember then, the sixty plus (?) court dismissals against similar claims of voter fraud.  

Quixotic...

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.9    2 weeks ago
No, you're just irritating as hell and they give up.

Oh yes Jim, I KNOW how irritated you and yours get when called out on the bullshit you post here at NT, especially when the call out includes FACTS that you and yours can't refute. 

Your nit picky,

Refuting bullshit with facts...

word parsing,

Examine and analyzing posits and proving them wrong...

and just plain negativity

Call out members who insist that everyone else swill the conservative pabulum...

is extremely tiring 

It's desperately tiring to try and fail to refute irrefutable facts. It's a wonder how often you and yours continue to do so, even after being proven utterly WRONG. 

and boring

It may surprise the shit out of you Jim but NONE of us are here to entertain you. Perhaps you can find some cartoons. 

and most choose to move along and let you have your self perceived victory  THAT is all and THAT is a fact.

Oh I'm sure that's what you and yours tell yourselves and each other. 

Own it.

I own what I post here Jim. However, I don't own the fantasy you and yours need to feel better about getting 'owned'. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
2.1.12  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @2.1.11    2 weeks ago
It's desperately tiring to try and fail to refute irrefutable facts. It's a wonder how often you and yours continue to do so, even after being proven utterly WRONG. 

You do so by parsing words and creating your own twisted and contorted facts from said parsing and nit picking. Period. And you like it. 

It may surprise the shit out of you Jim but NONE of us are here to entertain you. Perhaps you can find some cartoons.

You have like minds for that. And you are entertaining at times.........usually when your ass is handed to you and you disappear..........and then come back days later to refute hoping no one will notice or that it gave you time to find a source, ANY source to make a point based on your interpretation.

Too bad you and another "member" mere with the ridiculous and irritating avatar are on the same side of the aisle (and VERY similar in tactics) as it would truly be cheap entertainment.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.9    2 weeks ago

You have not stated one single fact there Jim.

Sounds like a string of personal insults to me.  

It's obvious to me that Dulay hands you and others their ass on a daily basis and you don't like the truth being pointed out to you.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.12    2 weeks ago
You do so by parsing words

I can't help but wonder which conservative was the first to tell you and yours the lie that parsing words is a BAD thing. 

and creating your own twisted and contorted facts from said parsing and nit picking. Period.

If that were true Jim, you and yours wouldn't be whining about ME and instead would be posting PROOF that I create facts. Since you and yours haven't and can't post said proof of that allegation, it should be obvious to 'our readers' that y'all HAVE NONE. 

And you like it. 

Again, I do like owning you and yours. I do not however accept the predicate for any of your allegations. It's a sad fantasy. 

You have like minds for that. And you are entertaining at times.........usually when your ass is handed to you and you disappear

You mean like Vic has on his last couple of seeds? 

..........and then come back days later to refute hoping no one will notice or that it gave you time to find a source, ANY source to make a point based on your interpretation.

I haven't 'disappeared for days' since I became a member here Jim. Your slip is showing. 

Too bad you and another "member" mere with the ridiculous and irritating avatar are on the same side of the aisle (and VERY similar in tactics) as it would truly be cheap entertainment.

Vic and I are NOT on the same side of the aisle. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Masters Participates
2.1.15  r.t..b...  replied to  Dulay @2.1.14    2 weeks ago

...and wear the ‘wordsmith’ label with pride... meant to be derogatory (while uttered in jealousy)...but unlike others, your words are your own. 

The detractors can only dream of being eloquent as they are trapped in being irrelevant... left to parroting the thoughts and words of others.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
2.1.16  Krishna  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.1    2 weeks ago
Allegations don't equal crimes in the US.

Except, of course, if you're a Black person on trial in any one of a number of Southern Courtrooms.

(Yes, even today jrSmiley_5_smiley_image.png )

 
 
 
FortunateSon
Freshman Silent
2.1.17  FortunateSon  replied to  Krishna @2.1.16    2 weeks ago
Allegations don't equal crimes in the US. Except, of course, if you're a Black person

Or trump. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

Can you find a source for this story that is reputable? 

A search for (2) Three poll watchers have sworn under penalty of perjury that the ballots looked fake - Bing   turned up nothing but far right conspiracy sites.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 weeks ago

There was no problem with the integrity of the election on the DEMOCRAT side.  President Biden won fair and square.  

So why the resistance?

I wonder how much those poll workers were paid to say what they said?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
3.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @3.1    2 weeks ago

Reading is fundamental.

Voyles' observation and similar ones from at least three other poll workers prompted them to come forward and swear under penalty of perjury that the ballots looked fake.

This is the penalty for perjury in Georgia.

(a) A person to whom a lawful oath or affirmation has been administered commits the offense of perjury when, in a judicial proceeding, he knowingly and willfully makes a false statement material to the issue or point in question.

(b) A person convicted of the offense of perjury shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years, or both. A person convicted of the offense of perjury that was a cause of another's being imprisoned shall be sentenced to a term not to exceed the sentence provided for the crime for which the other person was convicted. A person convicted of the offense of perjury that was a cause of another's being punished by death shall be punished by life imprisonment.

So a $1,000 fine and possibly 1 to 10 years in prison. So accusing them of taking money w/o any damn proof is not only slanderous; but a little stupid. 

There was no problem with the integrity of the election on the DEMOCRAT side.

Then Democrats shouldn't care about checking all of the votes cast in Fulton County. Of course if some turn out to be fake the whole damn leftist narrative of "no voter fraud", and "only Republicans cheat" goes flying out the damn window. It will also call into question other disputed areas that didn't do recounts where suspicious activity (like counting votes after telling observers they were done for the day) occurred.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

I repeat, I wonder how much these poll workers were paid to say what they said?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
3.1.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.1    2 weeks ago
There was no problem with the integrity of the election on the DEMOCRAT side.

Amazing that with a statement like that, they still resist any effort to uncover ANY irregularities. If there isn't a there there, what's the problem?

Some people just don't think prior to hitting "Post Your Comment".

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.3    2 weeks ago
"Some people just don't think prior to hitting "Post Your Comment".

Ya!  So true!

Amazing that with a statement like that, they still resist any effort to uncover ANY irregularities. If there isn't a there there, what's the problem?

Some people just don't think prior to hitting "Post Your Comment".

Funny how that all applies to the republicans.

And their re-re-re counts in states where President Biden WON.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.1    2 weeks ago
This is the penalty for perjury in Georgia.

Which is why they only stated that the ballots "looked" fake, in their opinion.  If shown to be wrong, there is no penalty.  It's a no lose claim that cannot not be held against them.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.5    2 weeks ago

It is a loss if the ballots are looked at and found to be valid.

See how simple it is!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.1    2 weeks ago
Reading is fundamental.
Voyles' observation and similar ones from at least three other poll workers prompted them to come forward and swear under penalty of perjury that the ballots looked fake.
This is the penalty for perjury in Georgia.

Yet the seeded article LIES about exactly what Voyle's 'observations' were. Too bad the reporter who spewed that lie and the website that published it aren't held to the penalties for perjury. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.8  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.6    2 weeks ago

It is a loss if the ballots are looked at and found to be valid.See how simple it is!

And how many times do you want to look at them?  The people doing the counting did not notice a difference. 

  • So maybe another "poll watcher" will claim that they smelled wrong, so we can look at them again.
  • Or that they looked like they had bamboo in them, so we can check them yet again.
  • Or that they were watermarked, that way they can be checked yet again and again.
  • How about claiming that some of the signatures were in blue pen instead of black, or that 2 of them had similar letter "B's"?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.8    2 weeks ago
So maybe another "poll watcher" will claim that they smelled wrong, so we can look at them again.

Ha Ha. Thats a good one.  Given enough time, I'm sure the crackpots will get to it. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.10  Ozzwald  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.9    2 weeks ago
Given enough time, I'm sure the crackpots will get to it.

I'm sure they caught a whiff of soy sauce.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
3.1.11  Krishna  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.1    2 weeks ago
This is the penalty for perjury in Georgia.

Guess trump has never been in Georgia, eh?

 
 
 
FortunateSon
Freshman Silent
3.1.12  FortunateSon  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.8    2 weeks ago
The people doing the counting did not notice a difference.

LOL 

Yes they did.

From the article 

Polling manager Suzi Voyles says that when counting absentee ballots for the 2020 presidential election, thousands of them, perhaps tens of thousands, for then-Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden appeared to have been photocopied.

Voyles' observation and similar ones from at least three other poll workers prompted them to come forward and swear under penalty of perjury that the ballots looked fake.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.13  Ender  replied to  FortunateSon @3.1.12    2 weeks ago

Oh gee. They swore under penalty of perjury...

There is nothing anyone could do to them anyway. Anyone could say that maybe some looked fake.

There is no way to prove a thought is right or wrong so they could never be charged with anything.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
3.1.14  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ender @3.1.13    2 weeks ago

Agreed, it was their opinion that some looked like photocopies, so even if it WAS a lie, nobody could prove it was intended to be a lie, even if (and I believe) it was. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.15  Ender  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.1.14    2 weeks ago

They are just using that line as they think it actually adds credibility to what the people are claiming, when it does no such thing.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
3.2  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @3.2    2 weeks ago

Typical far right "both sides" ism.

I don't post from conspiracy sites.

By the way , every story I seed can be found on a mainstream media site. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
3.2.2  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.1    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
3.2.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.1    2 weeks ago
every story I seed can be found on a mainstream media site. 

And that is part of the problem. You and the "mainstream media" are completely on the same page. For at least the last 6 years............as long as you agree with them.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.3    2 weeks ago

Here is a Bing search for (2) Suzi Voyles - Bing     who is the main complaintant in the story Vic seeded.  All of these sites in this search are far right sites that traffic in conspiracies. 

I am going to seed an article about this that is more balanced, from Georgia's leading newspaper. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.1    2 weeks ago
every story I seed can be found on a mainstream media site. 

But the MSM is biased. I gave you NBC. You claimed that you looked. Did you really think that anything connected to a Court decision wouldn't be covered?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.7  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.6    2 weeks ago

(deleted)

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.7    2 weeks ago

Oh Tess, you shouldn't have changed it. Here I thought you were about to answer all our questions!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 weeks ago

How about a far left site lite NBC?

Here John:





That's Check

th?id=OIP.uqECmXOVJ24tzuVCLFxVrQHaFL&w=150&h=105&c=8&rs=1&qlt=90&o=6&pid=3.1&rm=2

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
3.3.3  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3    2 weeks ago

Obviously mate, you don't play chess.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @3.3.3    2 weeks ago

Do you?   Please tell us how to get out of the above problem. It looks to me like there is one move left or to accept defeat.

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
3.3.5  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.4    2 weeks ago

The position is checkmate, obviously puns are not your forté mate.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.3.6  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3    2 weeks ago
How about a far left site lite NBC?

How about acknowledging that the NBC article merely reports on the fact that there is going to be a recount and contains NOTHING about the Voyles' bullshit nor does it repeat the LIES spewed by your source. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @3.3.6    2 weeks ago

A recount?  That would be a complete waste of time. If those ballots are fakes they would simply be recounted. NOBODY WANTS A RECOUNT!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @3.3.5    2 weeks ago

Don't worry, someday you might be able to contradict me.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.8    2 weeks ago

I havent played chess in a LONG time, but even I know that is checkmate. 

 
 
 
Trotsky's Spectre
Freshman Quiet
3.3.10  Trotsky's Spectre  replied to  Hallux @3.3.5    2 weeks ago

'Please tell us how to get out of the above problem. It looks to me like there is one move left or to accept defeat.'

Hallux:

You should cede the point and ask the master to reveal the saving move in that scenario. The black king steps off the board? Claim it's white to move? Pretend that the attacked piece is not the black king but a bishop?

This is hilarious. I captured the whole exchange in a screenshot and added the URL to preserve this moment for all time!

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
3.3.11  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.8    2 weeks ago

I do it every day, you are easy.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.3.12  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.7    2 weeks ago

So you don't want them to count the ballots? 

BTW, the JUDGE will decide the parameters and it will be controlled by a special manager, UNLIKE the debacle in AZ. 

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
3.3.13  Hallux  replied to  Trotsky's Spectre @3.3.10    2 weeks ago

Never stop a man who is playing the Fool's Gambit.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.3.14  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.8    2 weeks ago

That 'someday' is irrefutably TODAY. 

 
 
 
Trotsky's Spectre
Freshman Quiet
3.3.15  Trotsky's Spectre  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.7    2 weeks ago

'A recount?  That would be a complete waste of time. If those ballots are fakes they would simply be recounted. NOBODY WANTS A RECOUNT!'

Thank you kindly. If you don't mind, I'd like to hold you to that ...

1280

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.16  TᵢG  replied to  Hallux @3.3.5    2 weeks ago

Well, to be completely fair, we do not have the entire board so we do not know if this is check or checkmate.

For example, if black has a piece that can capture the white Queen then this is not checkmate.

But if that picture is meant to show the only active pieces then, yes, that would be a checkmate.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.17  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @3.3.14    2 weeks ago
"That 'someday' is irrefutably TODAY."

And every other day!

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
3.3.18  Hallux  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.16    2 weeks ago
Well, to be completely fair,

Be fair with Vic? Surely you jest.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.19  TᵢG  replied to  Hallux @3.3.18    2 weeks ago

Sure, why not?   If someone is unfair with me I do not reciprocate;  I prefer instead to expose the unfairness.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
3.3.20  Krishna  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.4    2 weeks ago
 Please tell us how to get out of the above problem. It looks to me like there is one move left or to accept defeat.

Says the man whose avatar looks like Lenin!

Pshaw!

(Show me The Bamboo fibers in the paper, OK?)

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Principal
3.3.21  Raven Wing  replied to  Krishna @3.3.20    2 weeks ago
Says the man whose avatar looks like Lenin!

Ain't that the truth. jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Principal
3.3.22  Raven Wing  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.8    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Trotsky's Spectre
Freshman Quiet
3.4  Trotsky's Spectre  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 weeks ago

'Can you find a source...'

I'm waiting for a few hundred to be charged out of what ... the tens of millions[?] who voted illegally.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
4  Buzz of the Orient    2 weeks ago

If elections cannot be trusted, maybe "one person one vote" democracy isn't the best method to establish a country's government.  

 
 
 
Sunshine
Masters Guide
4.1  Sunshine  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4    2 weeks ago

What would be to you?  

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sunshine @4.1    2 weeks ago

If I knew I would have said it - all I did was imply a question that was in my mind. 

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
4.1.2  Krishna  replied to  Sunshine @4.1    2 weeks ago
What would be to you?  

Don't answer that Buzz-- it's a trap!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4    2 weeks ago
If elections cannot be trusted, maybe "one person one vote" democracy isn't the best method to establish a country's government.  

With the electoral college, there is no "one person one vote".

 
 
 
Sunshine
Masters Guide
4.2.1  Sunshine  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2    2 weeks ago

Certainly with the Democrat's superdelegates.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.2.2  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @4.2.1    2 weeks ago

Whoosh right over your head. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.2.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Dulay @4.2.2    2 weeks ago
Whoosh right over your head. 

You get used to it with some people.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
4.2.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2    2 weeks ago
With the electoral college, there is no "one person one vote".

If that is so, then how can it be considered a "true" democracy?  Canada is more of a democracy than the USA, because although it is made up of provinces with many of their own jurisdictions, when it comes to a vote for a federal position, there is no screwing around with ballots cast in the various provinces - it all goes to one source - one person one vote is the fact and the rule. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

No flags for people who question sources of widely known news stories?


There should be!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5    2 weeks ago

I doubt if there is a single person calling for this "ballot inspection" in Georgia who is not a far right trumpster crackpot. 

Why are you people doing this to this country? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    2 weeks ago
I doubt if there is a single person calling for this "ballot inspection" in Georgia who is not a far right trumpster crackpot. 

It doesn't matter who makes such a complaint. In this case they were election observers. Why not look at those ballots?


Why are you people doing this to this country? 

Says the man who advertises for imprisoning political opponents.

Says the ideology that rioted for over a year.

Says the ideology that wants to teach white children that they are born racist.

Says the ideology that is scheming for one party rule.


Any rational human being reading this should be asking "why not look at it and settle it once and for all?"  

That would restore a lot of the confidence that was destroyed, right?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.1    2 weeks ago

I dont want Trump in prison because he is a political opponent. I want him in prison because he is a known crook who has been embarrassing the shit out of this country since 2011.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
5.1.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.2    2 weeks ago
who has been embarrassing the shit out of this country since 2011.

And, other than the obvious affects on your psyche, how has Mr. Trump affected your life personally negatively? Not talking overall "perceptions" of what he has done. Your life PERSONALLY.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.2    2 weeks ago

You can't convict anyone of being "a known crook."

How about you spell out a specific charge. A NY AG is searching for one right now.

Help her out John.

Please tell us you know something about what you have been proclaiming for 4 years?


All of our readers are on the edge of their seats!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.5    2 weeks ago

Oh I dont think the prosecutors in NY state need any more help. The controller from Trump's company is cooperating. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.5    2 weeks ago

Back in 2015 or early 2016 I saw a story about Trump's games with property taxes. 

He reported the worth of one of his golf courses , in response to the county tax authorities , as being something like a million dollars. He reported the worth of the same property to the bank as 20 times that when he wanted to borrow money. 

3 or 4 years later Michael Cohen described the same (type of) scheme to a Senate committee. 

It is against the law and the NY prosecutors know it. It is tax fraud. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.7    2 weeks ago
Oh I dont think the prosecutors in NY state need any more help.

They don't?  But they haven't been able to tell us of specific charges!


The controller from Trump's company is cooperating. 

That is not a fact, only rumor and claims from unnamed sources - from the media you trust.


I have to ask you again - Give us a specific charge?

This should be easy for you John.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.10  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.8    2 weeks ago
It is against the law and the NY prosecutors know it. It is tax fraud. 

Then where are the charges?


John says he committed tax fraud!!!!

We will be watching with baited breath!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.10    2 weeks ago
We will be watching with baited breath!

GOOD !

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.12  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.11    2 weeks ago

This will be the second time that you invested in a narrative about Donald Trump.

You are a true believer. He must have done something wrong!  If only we keep searching. That was Comey's motto!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.9    2 weeks ago
That is not a fact, only rumor and claims from unnamed sources - from the media you trust

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.14  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.12    2 weeks ago

Vic, I have been following news about Donald Trump since he started lying about Barack Obama in 2011. 

I have yet to see anything from you that indicates you know more about Trump than you could read on a bubblegum card. And of course you dont want to know. 

We are on two different levels. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.15  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.14    2 weeks ago
We are on two different levels. 

Not on knowledge, but on interests. I care about this country.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
5.1.16  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.8    2 weeks ago
It is against the law and the NY prosecutors know it. It is tax fraud.

I must ask, what the fuck is wrong with New York, other than the obvious. Where I live we don't get to assess our property value, be it business or private, for tax purposes. And banks do their own assessments/appraisals for reasons of borrowing money. If they let him get away with that, it was only him taking advantage of their idiocy and ineptitude.

If he paid taxes and borrowed money based on HIS valuations, that is pure bullshit and New York got what they allowed FFS. Now, perhaps a link showing that is what actually happened and NOT that he was reassessed and a due diligence appraisal done would be great.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.17  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.16    2 weeks ago

And I assume where you live the state doesn't leak tax information.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.1.18  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.16    2 weeks ago
I must ask, what the fuck is wrong with New York, other than the obvious.

Can I ask you to stop talking smack about NY. I don't talk it about your home state.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.1.19  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.17    2 weeks ago

No one leaks tax info. It is against the law. The only way to get it is with a subpoena or to the IRS, or by request with validation to the AG. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.20  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.18    2 weeks ago

If anyone wants to talk about what's wrong in my state, I'm totally ok with it.

Perrie, It's not like we are talking about the Yankees. Any number of blue states have self inflicted problems. You have an AG who actually ran on prosecuting Trump. It has come up here. Is that not open to conversation?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.21  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.19    2 weeks ago
No one leaks tax info.

It is a big story in Forbes:




And then there is the IRS employee who leaked Trump's returns:

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
5.1.22  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.18    2 weeks ago

You can ask but if what Mr. Russell says is true, you too should be concerned. Do you get to assess your home for tax purposes? Do you get to tell the bank how much your home is worth for a re-fi or home improvement loan?

THAT was the point and if you took it differently, that would be on you. I suspect Mr. Russell is taking things out of context that never actually happened. Yes he may have TOLD them that but when the bill came due, was it those valuations that were the basis for his costs/loans?

And I don't care if you do talk smack about my home state. Everyone has an opinion..........and I sure as hell know that what Mr. Russell says happened in New York doesn't happen here.

Sorry for your misunderstanding.

 
 
 
bugsy
PhD Guide
5.1.23  bugsy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.18    2 weeks ago
Can I ask you to stop talking smack about NY. I don't talk it about your home state.

There could be people from all 50 states on here. Are we not allowed to talk about any of their negatives?

Hell, most of the far lefties on here bash Florida, and especially DeSantis.....all with no proof, but no one complains about that.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.1.24  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.22    2 weeks ago
Do you get to assess your home for tax purposes?

Absolutely not. The county assesses our homes.

Do you get to tell the bank how much your home is worth for a re-fi or home improvement loan?

No. They use the county assessment plus they may send in their own assessors. 

And I am sorry, but there is no need to be insulting, especially when the facts are not correct. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.25  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.22    2 weeks ago

If you take an empty piece of land and build a golf course on it, it is certainly worth quite a bit more than when it was empty. The taxing authority does ask the owner of that golf course what is it worth. If they get back a reasonable answer they probably go with it. If they get back a figure that is 1/20th of what it should be they will reach their own conclusions. 

From Trump's perspective of someone who owns many properties, you try and cheat. I'm sure sometimes it works and sometimes it doesnt. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
5.1.26  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.24    2 weeks ago
And I am sorry, but there is no need to be insulting, especially when the facts are not correct. 

Wasn't trying to be insulting and what you just typed proved that Mr. Russell is full of crap. Were you supporting my posit with your "when the facts are not correct"? Then perhaps a deletion of Mr. Russell's posts is in order. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.1.27  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  bugsy @5.1.23    2 weeks ago

Bugsy, I don't care if they talk about my Gov or Mayor. But I have read a lot of stuff about my entire state, that says it sucks, and that is kind of insulting. If you don't like what people are saying about Florida, then you are free to ask to stop.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.1.28  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.20    2 weeks ago
You have an AG who actually ran on prosecuting Trump. It has come up here. Is that not open to conversation?

Talking about issues in my state is fine. Implying that my state is crap isn't, at least to me. It doesn't add to the discussion.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.1.29  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.26    2 weeks ago

My job here is to just stop comments that are personal in nature, not wrong. The point of the discussion is to prove someone is wrong with facts. I just provided the facts.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.30  Tessylo  replied to  bugsy @5.1.23    2 weeks ago

Floriduh

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.31  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.15    2 weeks ago

lol. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
5.1.32  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.25    2 weeks ago
I'm sure sometimes it works and sometimes it doesnt. 

That seems like a walk back from your previous and for that I say, nicely done. And again, if it does work, someone is on the take and getting a kickback............perhaps. Not saying always just perhaps.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.1.33  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.30    2 weeks ago

Tess,

Kind of proving Bugsy's point.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.34  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.32    2 weeks ago

No one is going to "prove" Trump is criminally liable on an internet forum. I do know he's been a crook all his life, but crooks dont always go to jail. Especially not white collar crooks. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.1.35  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.21    2 weeks ago

Vic, 

I am sure they no longer work for the IRS.

Furthermore, Trump has had an ongoing audit since 2011, long before he even thought of running for President.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.36  Tessylo  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.33    2 weeks ago

I don't care what bugsy's point is or what he has to say.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.37  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.32    2 weeks ago

If someone owns a property assessed at 20 million, and then fills out financial documents saying the property is worth 40 million for borrowing purposes  and financial documents saying it is worth 5 million for tax purposes he is criminally liable for fraud. 

That is what the NY investigation is expected to show. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
5.1.38  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.35    2 weeks ago
Furthermore, Trump has had an ongoing audit since 2011, long before he even thought of running for President.

So ten years and nothing???? Is this one of those "show me the man and I'll show you the crime" things?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.39  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.38    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.40  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.35    2 weeks ago
I am sure they no longer work for the IRS.

I would hope not.


Furthermore, Trump has had an ongoing audit since 2011, long before he even thought of running for President.

It is a huge company with interests world-wide. The tax code is complicated. Right now those taxes are being examined by one who vowed to prosecute him.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.41  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.28    2 weeks ago
Implying that my state is crap isn't, at least to me.

You know how I feel about Saratoga, Belmont and Aqueduct?  How could you think such things?

 
 
 
Sunshine
Masters Guide
5.1.42  Sunshine  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.40    2 weeks ago

It is strictly political.  Another witch-hunt as the others have tuned out to be.  I guess the citizens of New York do not mind their tax dollars being wasted on this.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.1.43  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sunshine @5.1.42    2 weeks ago

Sunshine,

They did the same thing with Loretta Helmsley. Trump's investigation has been going on since 2011. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.1.44  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.41    2 weeks ago

I know you love NY, and the feeling is mutual with your home state.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
5.1.45  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.37    2 weeks ago
If someone owns a property assessed at 20 million, and then fills out financial documents saying the property is worth 40 million for borrowing purposes  and financial documents saying it is worth 5 million for tax purposes he is criminally liable for fraud.  That is what the NY investigation is expected to show. 

That being the case, someone in GovCo's head(s) need to roll. It's called due diligence and if that is NOT carried out, the onus, and blame and fraud charge, is on that of the taxing authority and lending institution(s)

 
 
 
Sunshine
Masters Guide
5.1.46  Sunshine  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.38    2 weeks ago
So ten years and nothing???? Is this one of those "show me the man and I'll show you the crime" things?

Mueller, Congress, and the IRS through countless investigations couldn't put him jail but by golly the State of New York will. jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.47  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.44    2 weeks ago

There is a lot less to see here.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.1.48  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.38    2 weeks ago

The audit is taking so long since he has paid so little in taxes and that sets off bells for the IRS. Also the wealthier you are, the longer an audit takes. I used to defend people against the IRS when I started my career as an accountant, and it is not that unusual. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
5.1.49  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.48    2 weeks ago
and it is not that unusual. 

But your linked article says differently..........

President Trump has described his audit as ‘very routine,’ but legal experts say it is quite unusual

"Given the size of the refund, Trump’s audit is very much unlike what the average American would experience if their return were to come under scrutiny from the Internal Revenue Service. But even among high-net worth individuals, an audit like Trump’s is highly unusual in many ways, experts said."
 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.50  Ender  replied to  Sunshine @5.1.46    2 weeks ago

Mueller was never going to charge him and congress was not going to put him in jail.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
5.1.51  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @5.1.50    2 weeks ago

Couldn't while he was sitting President from what I understand and it wasn't for lack of trying. The major thrust became making sure he doesn't get in office again.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Masters Guide
5.1.52  Sunshine  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.51    2 weeks ago
Couldn't while he was sitting President from what I understand and it wasn't for lack of trying. The major thrust became making sure he doesn't get in office again.

Nothing stopping them now except they have nothing.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.53  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.51    2 weeks ago

You obviously understand very little.  

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.54  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.51    2 weeks ago

If he would have been fully impeached that would have been the outcome.

There was no trying on Mueller's part. He has said he was never going to charge him from the start.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
5.1.55  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @5.1.50    2 weeks ago
ueller was never going to charge him

Because there were no crimes committed. If there were, he'd have been arrested by now.  

and congress was not going to put him in jail.

Do you imagine they could? 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.56  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.55    2 weeks ago
Do you imagine they could?

I am not the one with the false impression that they could. Maybe you should talk to your friend.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.57  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.55    2 weeks ago
ueller was never going to charge him
Because there were no crimes committed.

No, because Mueller was "Never going to charge him"....

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
5.1.58  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @5.1.57    2 weeks ago
No, because Mueller was "Never going to charge him"

While he was  President.  He's not President now is he?  

Clinton, who actually committed crimes in office, had to reach an agreement with prosecutors to avoid being arrested when his term ended.  Trump didn't.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.59  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.58    2 weeks ago

You actually think Mueller is going to go back after donald's term and charge him?

No, don't be ridiculous.

He was still, never going to charge him.

That is not a hard phrase to understand. Instead I get, well he could of would of should of bullshit.

He explicitly stated he was not ever going to do it and was just going to hand over his findings for others to decide.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.60  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.58    2 weeks ago
Clinton, who actually committed crimes in office

Oh gee...We all know how serious it is lying about a blowjob. The end of the fucking world...

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.61  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.1    2 weeks ago
In this case they were election observers.

 Voyles wasn't an 'election observer' Vic. 

Oh and BTFW the Judge in Georgia dismissed the part of the lawsuit whining about observers. You should READ his ruling. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
5.1.62  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.14    2 weeks ago
Vic, I have been following news about Donald Trump since he started lying about Barack Obama in 2011. 

Just remember, and you make it incredibly evident, "He who angers you, controls you" and your commentary and seeds over the last 6 or more years exemplify that perfectly. Shit Mr. Russell, give it a rest and try to enjoy the rest of your life here on earth.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.63  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.62    2 weeks ago

John isn't at all angry.  It appears that you are.  

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.64  Ender  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.63    2 weeks ago

It is ironic that people get accused of being obsessed with donald on a seed like this.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
5.1.65  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @5.1.64    2 weeks ago
It is ironic that people get accused of being obsessed with donald on a seed like this.

Why? The Donald is not the topic of this seed. The Georgia vote is. But yet he of course comes up as though he is in charge of the audit.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.66  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.65    2 weeks ago

Really? What do you think this is all about?

Election security my ass.

It is about conspiracy theory laden people that are die hard donald supporters doing all of this....

 
 
 
Sunshine
Masters Guide
5.1.67  Sunshine  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.58    2 weeks ago
He's not President now is he?  

Some refuse to accept that countless investigations before, during, and after Trump's presidency has not resulted in any criminal charges to him.  Hopefully the New York prosecutor is the last to throw a TDS bone to those still inflicted.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
5.1.68  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @5.1.66    2 weeks ago
It is about conspiracy theory laden people that are die hard donald supporters doing all of this....

That is your view and you have the right to think that way but the fact remains, he isn't the topic of the seed no matter how much some want  and evidently NEED to get their daily "Trump bad" fee fees out for all to see.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.69  Ender  replied to  Sunshine @5.1.67    2 weeks ago

Wow. You need to remind me off all these countless investigations that occurred before he was president.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.70  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.68    2 weeks ago

My view?

So you are under the impression that the ones doing this are not donald supporters?

If that is what you have to tell yourself.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.71  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.65    2 weeks ago

You must have missed Vic's #6 post from 3 HOURS ago which sure as hell broadened the 'topic' to include 'the Donald'. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.72  Ender  replied to  Dulay @5.1.71    2 weeks ago

It is all they have. Claim we are obsessed when they are the real obsessed ones that cannot stop thinking about him losing the election.

 
 
 
bugsy
PhD Guide
5.1.73  bugsy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.27    2 weeks ago
then you are free to ask to stop.

All that does is get the loons on here worked up and double down on their insults.

 
 
 
bugsy
PhD Guide
5.1.74  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.36    2 weeks ago
I don't care what bugsy's point is or what he has to say.  

Well, you're one person, however, pretty much everyone feels the same about you.....including most of the lefties.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.75  Tessylo  replied to  bugsy @5.1.74    2 weeks ago

No, not including most of the lefties.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
5.1.76  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @5.1.59    2 weeks ago
actually think Mueller is going to go back after donald's term and charge him?

OF course. Mueller, or Merrick Garland or any prosecutor with jurisdiction could prosecute Trump. . Do you not understand what prosecutors do?  

DO you think someone can get off scot free from being prosecuted for felonies because they changed jobs?  Where's that exception in the statute book? 

just going to hand over his findings for others to decide.

And Biden's DOJ and every  other prosecutor  decided there was no crime.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
5.1.77  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @5.1.60    2 weeks ago
all know how serious it is lying about a blowjob. The end of the fucking world

Right. I forgot progressives don't think sexual harassment is a big deal and those accused of it can perjure themselves and  obstruct justice with impunity.  After all, people who complain of being harassed are just, per Hillary Clinton  "whiney women," right? How dare they seek to hold their harassers accountable or expect a fair trial, right? 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.78  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.76    2 weeks ago

Again...(jeez)...Mueller was never going to charge him.

He was never going to come back and do it...

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.79  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.77    2 weeks ago

How is that sexual harassment?

The woman freely gave him a blowjob.

The only thing he was charged with was lying about it.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
5.1.80  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @5.1.78    2 weeks ago
gain...(jeez)...Mueller was never going to charge him

How are you missing that not only could Mueller have charged him, any other prosecutor with jurisdiction (hello Biden's DOJ) can as well?   Mueller  is but one fish in the sea and his decision  not to decide if Trump committed any crimes isn't binding on anyone else. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
5.1.81  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @5.1.79    2 weeks ago
ow is that sexual harassment?

Do you really not know what happened? Clinton lied under oath while being questioned as a defendant in a sexual harassment case. 

Again, I get it, you and other progressives think those accused of sexual harassment are free to lie under oath because sexually harassed women don't deserve fair trials. You've made yourself clear. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.82  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.80    2 weeks ago

Because you all keep bringing up Mueller saying he could have done it when he was never going to.

Imo the real reason he will never be charged with anything from the Mueller report is that they want to protect future presidents.

Also it would be hard to define.

Weird that you all think just because someone was never charged they could not have committed a crime...

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.83  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.81    2 weeks ago

No you think you are being clever when you are not.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.84  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.58    2 weeks ago
While he was  President.  He's not President now is he?  

Right, and Mueller's not the Special Counsel now is he? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.85  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1.84    2 weeks ago
Mueller's not the Special Counsel now is he? 

Right, he isn't.

Excellent recognition there.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.86  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.77    2 weeks ago

Gee Sean, I don't remember Lewinski claiming that she was sexually harassed at the time or that she made any attempt to prosecute Clinton for anything. Got a link to that fantasy? 

As for 'impunity', there WERE consequences for Clinton. Crack a history book. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.87  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.85    2 weeks ago

Almost as revelatory as Sean's statement...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
5.1.88  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @5.1.86    2 weeks ago

 I don't remember Lewinski claiming that she was sexually harassed at the time or that she made any attempt to prosecute Clinton for anything. Got a link to that fantas

Gee Dulay. Reading is fundamental. I never said she was. Which liberal  was the first to tell you and yours the lie that parsing words is a BAD thing? Please pay attention to the words you respond to. 

s for 'impunity', there WERE consequences for Clinton.

What are you blathering about?  I know there were. What perversions did you perform to the English language to come up with the idea that I claimed there weren't consequences for Clinton?  I referenced the agreement he reached with the special council's office to avoid being arrested.   You really need to concentrate on understanding the words you respond to because you look ridiculous when you make claims like this.

Crack a history book

I'd advise you to start with a primer and work your way up to a history book after you master basic reading skills.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
5.1.89  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @5.1.84    2 weeks ago
ight, and Mueller's not the Special Counsel now is he

Keep working on this. You can get there.  

Here's a hint. Merrick Garland. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.90  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1.87    2 weeks ago

What is revelatory is your "understanding" of what is being written.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Masters Guide
5.1.91  Sunshine  replied to  Ender @5.1.82    2 weeks ago

Weird that you all think just because someone was never charged they could not have committed a crime.

Reminds me of Hill and Bill.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
5.1.92  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @5.1.82    2 weeks ago
Because you all keep bringing up Mueller saying he could have done it when he was never going to.

Because he could. So could Merrick Garland or any other prosecutor. That's the reality you can't deal with after years of pushing  all sorts of nut job  conspiracy theories about Trump conspiring with Russia. And then reality hit and you couldn't handle it so you keep making up excuses why Trump was never  indicted for all these horrible crimes you claim he committed.  

n he will never be charged with anything from the Mueller report is that they want to protect future presidents.

Who Merrick Garland? That's quite a slur of Garland, that he's willing to allow felonies to go unchecked so future Presidents can also commit felonies.

Also it would be hard to define.

Treason, conspiracy and all those crimes progressives claim Trump committed are easy to define. Sadly you need actual evidence for them, not rumors on left wing conspiracy sites. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
5.1.93  Ronin2  replied to  Ender @5.1.60    2 weeks ago

Yes, perjury and obstruction of justice are serious crimes. Clinton was guilty of both.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
5.1.94  Krishna  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.58    2 weeks ago
While he was  President.  He's not President now is he?  

Well, he thinks he still is!

(As do many of his loony supporters-- Coo Coo for Cocoa Puffs!)

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.95  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.88    2 weeks ago
Gee Dulay. Reading is fundamental. I never said she was. Which liberal  was the first to tell you and yours the lie that parsing words is a BAD thing? Please pay attention to the words you respond to. 
What are you blathering about?  I know there were. What perversions did you perform to the English language to come up with the idea that I claimed there weren't consequences for Clinton?  I referenced the agreement he reached with the special council's office to avoid being arrested.   You really need to concentrate on understanding the words you respond to because you look ridiculous when you make claims like this.

Now you're just posting argle bargle. 

I'd advise you to start with a primer and work your way up to a history book after you master basic reading skills.

I'd advise that in the future you take a breath before you post whiny triggered replies. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.96  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.89    2 weeks ago
Keep working on this. You can get there.   Here's a hint. Merrick Garland. 

There's no work to be done Sean. The comment you replied to was about Mueller charging Trump. 

Your failed deflection is noted. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
5.1.97  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @5.1.95    2 weeks ago
Now you're just posting argle bargle. 

Poor Dulay.  You got embarrassed , yet again, because of your failure to comprehend English and have to resort to a substance free reply in a pathetic attempt to deflect from your humiliation. Why bother? No one falls for your transparent ploys. 

d advise that in the future you take a breath before you post whiny triggered replies

Start with that primer and look up deflection. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
5.1.98  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @5.1.96    2 weeks ago
Your failed deflection is noted.

Your failed deflection is noted. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.99  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.97    2 weeks ago
Poor Dulay.  You got embarrassed , yet again, because of your failure to comprehend English and have to resort to a substance free reply in a pathetic attempt to deflect from your humiliation. Why bother? No one falls for your transparent ploys. 

Not embarrassed at all Sean. You're projecting. 

Start with that primer and look up deflection. 

Why would I want to deflect from your whiny triggered reply Sean? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.100  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.98    2 weeks ago

How is citing a fact a deflection Sean? Please be specific. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
5.1.101  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @5.1.99    2 weeks ago
ot embarrassed at all Sean. You're pr

Of course you are... You are obviously trying to deflect from your poor reading comprehension being exposed by responding with mindless  insults. 

It

So flood the thread with insults and deflections since you can't form an actual argument. It's okay.  It's juvenile and transparent but that's the best best some can do.  Your humiliation stands, unrebutted, for all those who can read. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
5.1.102  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @5.1.100    2 weeks ago
ow is citing a fact a deflection Sean? Please be specific.

You really need to look up what the word deflection means. How do you not understand that?  This is basic stuff. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.103  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.92    2 weeks ago
Because he could.

What a load of crap.

Again, he said he was never going to. Really not that hard to understand...

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.104  Ender  replied to  Ronin2 @5.1.93    2 weeks ago

Maybe he should have just avoided and refused to answer any questions. Worked for donald.

The mere fact that you think lying about a blowjob was so serious is hilarious.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
5.1.105  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @5.1.104    2 weeks ago
mere fact that you think lying about a blowjob was so serious is hilariou

The fact that you think those accused of sexual harassment are free to lie under oath because sexually harassed women don't deserve fair trials is pathetic.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.106  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.101    2 weeks ago
You are obviously trying to deflect from your poor reading comprehension being exposed by responding with mindless  insults

Have you read this thread?

Time to look in a mirror...

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.107  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.105    2 weeks ago

The fact that you think Lewinsky was sexually harassed is comical.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
5.1.108  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @5.1.107    2 weeks ago
e fact that you think Lewinsky was sexually harassed is comical.

The fact you think that's what I claimed is sad. Reading is fundamental. Try again.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
5.1.109  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @5.1.106    2 weeks ago

ave you read this thread?

I have.  I've seen you defend the right of sexual harassers to lie under oath, fail to understand that Mueller or any prosecutor could charge Trump had the facts warranted it etc...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
5.1.110  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @5.1.103    2 weeks ago
e said he was never going to. Really not that hard to understand.

Yet you yourself wrote above that Trump would have been charged had the "impeachment been complete."

You spin so hard you can't even keep your own stories straight. 

The reality is Mueller could have charged Trump and would have charged Trump had the facts he found allowed it. They obviously didn't, which is why Mueller, Garland and every other prosecutor  not  bothered to try. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.111  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.108    2 weeks ago

It is what you have been claiming. Deny all you want.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.112  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.109    2 weeks ago

What you seem to fail to grasp is that Mueller said he was never going to charge him.

My lord that is not a hard thing to grasp yet you seem not to be able to.

But he coulda.

Yeah but he wasn't.

But he coulda.

He was never going to.

But he coulda...

Is the way this whole conversation has gone. Childish.

Now after you have been insulting Dulay and me, have the nerve to claim others were insulting when it was you yourself.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.113  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.101    2 weeks ago
Of course you are...

Nope. 

You are obviously trying to deflect from your poor reading comprehension being exposed by responding with mindless  insults. 

Containing myself by saying you are projecting is a mindful kindness Sean. 

So flood the thread with insults and deflections since you can't form an actual argument.

More projection. 

It's okay.  It's juvenile and transparent but that's the best best some can do.  Your humiliation stands, unrebutted, for all those who can read. 

Actually, when you say I am embarrassed and I say I am not, THAT is a rebuttal for all of those who understand the term. It seems you are not among them. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.114  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.102    2 weeks ago
You really need to look up what the word deflection means. How do you not understand that?  This is basic stuff. 

The 'basic stuff' is YOU explaining your claim after being asked to do so instead of deflecting to the definition of deflection. 

 
 
 
bugsy
PhD Guide
5.1.115  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @5.1.95    2 weeks ago
advise that in the future you take a breath before you post whiny triggered replies.

Says the person that whined about me posting about you being easily triggered and accusing me of personal attacks.

Now, go ahead and spin it, Dulay.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.116  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @5.1.115    2 weeks ago
Says the person that whined about me posting about you being easily triggered and accusing me of personal attacks. Now, go ahead and spin it, Dulay.

No need to spin bugsy. Every member here can see that you admit that your comment was about ME instead of the comment. Well done...

 
 
 
bugsy
PhD Guide
5.1.117  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @5.1.116    2 weeks ago

Well, when the post was "YOU are easily triggered", I guess that means I was speaking of you.

Good job with the comprehension. Accidents do happen.

Now, what does that have to do with you accusing someone of being triggered?

My guess is you don't see the correlation.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Principal
5.1.118  Raven Wing  replied to  Dulay @5.1.116    2 weeks ago
Every member here can see that you admit that your comment was about ME instead of the comment

They think they are being soo clever in trying to veil their personal attacks, when they are just so dang sloppy doing it that their intention is crystal clear to everyone else. I guess they don't mind making a fool of themselves. jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.119  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @5.1.117    2 weeks ago
Well, when the post was "YOU are easily triggered", I guess that means I was speaking of you. Good job with the comprehension. Accidents do happen.

It was no accident.

Now, what does that have to do with you accusing someone of being triggered?

Bad job with the comprehension. READ more carefully. 

My guess is you don't see the correlation.

Since there is none, you 'guess' right. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.120  Dulay  replied to  Raven Wing @5.1.118    2 weeks ago
I guess they don't mind making a fool of themselves.

Oh but they DO mind their foolishness being pointed out to them. 

 
 
 
bugsy
PhD Guide
5.1.121  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @5.1.119    2 weeks ago
It was no accident.

It was...believe me.

"Bad job with the comprehension. READ more carefully."

Don't need to. Did it the first time.

Let me refresh for your convenience.

"I'd advise that in the future you take a breath before you post whiny triggered replies." (Emphasis mine)

You are accusing someone of being triggered, the same exact thing you whined to me about being a personal attack. Do personal attacks only go against conservatives, where all others it's OK?

"

 
 
 
bugsy
PhD Guide
5.1.122  bugsy  replied to  Raven Wing @5.1.118    2 weeks ago
They think they are being soo clever in trying to veil their personal attacks, when they are just so dang sloppy doing it that their intention is crystal clear to everyone else. I guess they don't mind making a fool of themselves

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.123  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @5.1.121    2 weeks ago
You are accusing someone of being triggered, the same exact thing you whined to me about being a personal attack.

Again, WRONG. I think they have an app for sentence diagraming. Perhaps you could use one to help you understand what is triggered in my comment. Hint: It isn't someone, it's SOMETHING. 

Do personal attacks only go against conservatives, where all others it's OK?

Is META OK for conservatives bugsy? 

 
 
 
bugsy
PhD Guide
5.1.124  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @5.1.123    2 weeks ago

You believe what you want.

Your spin is a fail.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.125  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @5.1.124    2 weeks ago
You believe what you want. Your spin is a fail.

Well gee bugsy, you and yours have had 2 days to flag my comment and have it moderated.

Since it still stands, 3 days later, I BELIEVE your whining is what failed. 

 
 
 
bugsy
PhD Guide
5.1.126  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @5.1.125    2 weeks ago
Since it still stands, 3 days later, I BELIEVE your whining is what failed. 

Why flag something when the whole world can see how desperate some get to try and make a point and get the last word.

Keeping them up is way more entertaining than flagging.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.127  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @5.1.126    2 weeks ago
Why flag something when the whole world can see how desperate some get to try and make a point and get the last word. Keeping them up is way more entertaining than flagging.

Then WHY have you been whining about their content for days bugsy? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

For anyone following the NY AG, who ran on prosecuting Trump, they are searching through his tax returns for something in his far reaching operations that might be illegal.

It is a sham to be investigating anyone without a crime being committed. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @6    2 weeks ago

We await your continuing vote for Trump after he shoots someone in the middle of 5th avenue.  It is inevitable. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    2 weeks ago

Is that all you have today?

Time for a learning story. A long time ago during the Korean War, China issued a warning concerning how far US forces could advance. A real red line drawn in the sand. When that line was crossed thousands of Chinese troops were thrown into the battle. Some forward US Marine units were wiped out. The Air Force commander at the time, Gen Curtis LeMay used napalm on those Chinese troops. China, to this day, will not admit how many of their soldiers were incinerated. LeMay had made a comment before the attack in which he said he would trap them & kill them. I believe it was a prominent columnist who asked "why did he have to say that?"

LeMay saved thousands of lives. We needed him. He should have been thanked. Instead he quietly left the stage.

I leave the moral of the story to the reader.



th?id=AMMS_ea77542021c586597f87858b62ca322b&w=148&h=192&c=7&o=6&pid=SANGAM
He also led an effective, yet controversial bombing of Japan during WWII

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.1    2 weeks ago

Isnt LeMay the one who wanted to use battlefield nukes? 

Your "point" of course is transparent. You think Trump is our LeMay and we shouldnt let a little thing like him being a lifelong serial liar and a lifelong crook interfere with him "Making America Great Again". 

Do us all a favor and stop voting. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.2    2 weeks ago
we shouldnt let a little thing like

Nobody should be voting on a person's demeanor only his actions.


Do us all a favor and stop voting.

That's what you should do, as well as all those who vote according to race, gender and sexual preference.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.2    2 weeks ago
Isnt LeMay the one who wanted to use battlefield nukes? 

War is hell, John. The idea is to end it quickly. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.4    2 weeks ago
War is hell, John. The idea is to end it quickly. 

I think that was the idea behind Agent Orange. That worked out well. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.5    2 weeks ago

Vietnam wasn't an example of trying to win a war, let alone ending it quickly.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
6.1.7  Ozzwald  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.2    2 weeks ago
Isnt LeMay the one who wanted to use battlefield nukes?  Your "point" of course is transparent. You think Trump is our LeMay

Well, Trump DID want to nuke hurricanes....

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
6.1.8  Krishna  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    2 weeks ago
We await your continuing vote for Trump after he shoots someone in the middle of 5th avenue. 

Or-- before refusing to get the vaccine for fear of becoming Magnetic!

A Doctor-Turned-Conspiracy Theorist Falsely Claimed At An Ohio Hearing that The COVID-19 Vaccine Will Turn You Into A Magnet

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
6.1.9  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.5    2 weeks ago

Johnson did not want America to win in Vietnam, his goal was two fold. First was to stop communism from advancing (which was nonsense) and second seeing how many American lives he could cause to be lost due to his first goal.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.3  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6    2 weeks ago

You mean kinda sorta like the re-re-re-re-counts and those alleged three counts of Biden ballots appearing photocopied?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.4  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @6    2 weeks ago

Wow, I sure as hell hope you haven't flagged anyone for being off topic. The hypocrisy would be galactic. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @6.4    2 weeks ago

I think I've told you a hundred times - the author defines topic. I get to open it up or keep it narrowly fixed. Perrie may still be around if you want to get to get it straight?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.4.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @6.4    2 weeks ago

I think I've told you a hundred times - the author defines topic. I get to open it up or keep it narrowly fixed. Perrie may still be around if you want to get to get it straight?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.4.3  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @6.4    2 weeks ago

(deleted)

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.4.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @6.4.3    2 weeks ago

Then you thought wrong....

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.4.6  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.4.4    2 weeks ago

Talking to yourself now?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.4.7  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.4.1    2 weeks ago

Hypocrisy is STILL hypocrisy Vic...

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
6.4.8  Krishna  replied to  Tessylo @6.4.3    2 weeks ago

Exactly!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.5  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @6    2 weeks ago
For anyone following the NY AG, who ran on prosecuting Trump, they are searching through his tax returns for something in his far reaching operations that might be illegal.

Anyone following the investigations of Trump in NY should KNOW that the NY AG doesn't HAVE Trump's tax returns, the Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance has them. 

It is a sham to be investigating anyone without a crime being committed. 

Ridiculous. 

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
6.6  Krishna  replied to  Vic Eldred @6    2 weeks ago
It is a sham to be investigating anyone without a crime being committed. 

WTF? That makes no sense at all!

How could you be sure whether or not a crime was commited before you investigated?

(If that were the case, no one would ever have to investigate anything-- they'd just go with the first thing that came to mind-- without investigating the facts!

Like I said, Coo Coo for Cocoa Puffs!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.6.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Krishna @6.6    2 weeks ago
How could you be sure whether or not a crime was commited before you investigated?

You need a crime to investigate. Otherwise we have just become the Soviet Union.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
6.6.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.6.1    2 weeks ago
You need a crime to investigate.

Unless you're alleging that Dems have committed election fraud.  That calls for endless investigations, even if the occasional embarrassing incident of a Republican using his murdered wife's ballot to vote for Trump turns up.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.7  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6    2 weeks ago
It is a sham to be investigating anyone without a crime being committed. 

Investigations are often initiated based on evidence / allegations of a crime.   The determination of a crime is based on the resulting evidence.    The guilt of the accused is then determined by the judicial process.

Shams (witch hunts) do occur, but there is nothing at all wrong in principle to investigate on credible suspicion of a crime.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Participates
6.7.1  evilgenius  replied to  TᵢG @6.7    2 weeks ago
Investigations are often initiated based on evidence / allegations of a crime. 

In this case there have been multiple people - The ex Trump lawyer, the accountant's ex Daughter-In-Law and I think at least one of the Deutsche Bank officer (I may be mistaken on this last one). Rumor has it there are more being kept secret until they have enough to pull in Trump himself.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
6.7.2  dennis smith  replied to  TᵢG @6.7    2 weeks ago

Shams (witch hunts) certainly do occur. The dems tried them for over four years against Trump. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.7.3  Ender  replied to  dennis smith @6.7.2    2 weeks ago

Yes they do. Benghazi comes to mind. Or emails...

Or how many investigations did the republicans have during the Obama years?

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
6.7.4  dennis smith  replied to  Ender @6.7.3    2 weeks ago

How many times was Obama impeached for shams or witch hunts. NONE. 

Yet Trump was twice as well as a multi year Mueller investigation witch hunt. 

Dems have no shame, just hate. 

BTW, Hillary was not POTUS when Bengazi and her emails were called into question. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.7.5  Ender  replied to  dennis smith @6.7.4    2 weeks ago
Dems have no shame, just hate

Hilarious, considering...

We just went through four years of hate and now you are going to put it all on others...

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
6.7.6  dennis smith  replied to  Ender @6.7.5    2 weeks ago

 4 Years of hate from the left.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.7.7  Ender  replied to  dennis smith @6.7.6    2 weeks ago

Whatever you gotta tell yourself.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
6.7.8  dennis smith  replied to  Ender @6.7.7    one week ago

You brought up 4 years of hate as witnessed by: 

Mueller report will bring down Trump. Witch hunt 

Impeachment #1 will be the end of Trump as POTUS. Witch hunt.

Impeachment #2 will be the end of Trump as POTUS. Witch hunt. 

C'mon Man

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.7.9  Ender  replied to  dennis smith @6.7.8    one week ago

If you cannot, or refuse to see the hate donald spewed out for four years, there is nothing that will help you.

As is typical with doanld and his supporters, it is always someone else at fault.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
6.7.10  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @6.7.9    one week ago
If you cannot, or refuse to see the hate donald spewed out for four years, there is nothing that will help you

256

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.7.11  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @6.7.9    one week ago

They never accept responsibility for anything - trumpturd or his 'followers'.

When has trumpturd ever told the truth about anything?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
8  Ender    2 weeks ago
The watchdogs suspect as many as tens of thousands of the ballots may have been manufactured in a race that Biden won by just 12,000 votes

Well well. Isn't that convenient.

Amazing that these supposed fraudsters knew what the election count would be and just how many 'fake' ballots needed.

And now the 'fraud is about the same number Biden won by.

No matter how many times you all say it, everyone knows your election security line is bullshit.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
8.1  Krishna  replied to  Ender @8    2 weeks ago

Like I said before-- show me The Bamboo Fibers in the paper-- or the Chinese didn't do it!!!

(That's my position, and I'm sticking to it!)

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Krishna @8.1    2 weeks ago

Don't forget the hoisin sauce stains.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9  TᵢG    2 weeks ago
Election watchdogs have used their affidavits to help convince a state judge to unseal all of the 147,000 mail-in ballots counted in Fulton and allow a closer inspection of the suspicious Biden ballots for evidence of counterfeiting, The Epoch Times reports Tuesday.

Yes, investigate.   Should be easy enough to find evidence of counterfeiting.

But if the result is just minor variations (as one would expect in an election) will this end the incessant attempts by Rs to shore up Trump's absolute bullshit claim of fraud?   I think not.   I think nothing will stop select Trump supporters from desperately trying to find a way to make Trumps grand lie a truth short of just telling them:  enough is enough, get a life.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @9    2 weeks ago
will this end the incessant attempts by Rs to shore up Trump's absolute bullshit claim of fraud?  

Absolutely!  And by the same token, If the ballots that we can't currently see are determined to be fake, what will we hear from you?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1    2 weeks ago

What do you think you will hear from me Vic?    If the evidence were to show fraud at a level that would impact the election I would be crying foul and be in support of a full investigation.   I operate on facts, not conspiracy theory.  

Do you think this latest attempt is going to result in anything significant?   Given all the investigations / recounts in the past yielded nothing to support Trump's grand lie.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.1    2 weeks ago
What do you think you will hear from me Vic?  

I'm not looking to play games, simple question, just like the one you asked - WHAT WOULD YOU SAY?



 If the evidence were to show fraud at a level that would impact the election I would be crying foul and be in support of a full investigation. 

It wouldn't impact the election. We are asking if you understand the difference between saying there is no fraud and there is no evidence of fraud?


I operate on facts, not conspiracy theory.  

"Conspiracy theory" seems to your term for people asking questions that you don't like. BTW a term used by a biased media. (Today caught lying once again.)


Do you think this latest attempt is going to result in anything significant?

NO!


Given all the investigations / recounts in the past yielded nothing to support Trump's grand lie.

Mostly recounts and they haven't shown anything along the lines of an election being stolen.


Are you now up to answering my question?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.2    2 weeks ago
Are you now up to answering my question?

Read my answer.   I answered your question. You play games by accusing me of same.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.3    2 weeks ago

I rest my case.

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
9.1.5  bccrane  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.1    2 weeks ago
I operate on facts, not conspiracy theory.  

Fact:  Trump went after the poll workers doing the counting.

Fact:  Trump went after the vote counting machines.

Fact:  Trump went after the states for changing rules due to covid.

Fact:  Trump went after the signatures on the envelopes.

Fact:  Trump went after all kinds of what else etc.

Fact:  Trump didn't go after the ballot envelopes.

Fact:  The ballot envelopes can be opened with heat and resealed without evidence of tampering.

So from these facts can I assume (I know, shouldn't use that word) that Trump's obsession that he in fact won is because he knew of and capitalized the fact that the envelopes could be opened and when he didn't the fraud had to have happened elsewhere just by the evidence and direction of his search.

Would you think that checking into the envelopes to be a valid question to be asking?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  bccrane @9.1.5    2 weeks ago
Would you think that checking into the envelopes to be a valid question to be asking?

After all this time and all the checks and, to this point, no evidence of fraud Trump's allegations have been routinely proved false.   He lied.   Do you not see that?  Everyone should realize that (at least by now).

If there is credible evidence of fraud that would have changed the election then of course investigate.   This, I predict, will result in yet another meh.   When will Trump supporters stop asking for yet another investigation?   Will this ever stop?   I wonder.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.4    2 weeks ago
I rest my case.

Vic, you can engage in ridiculous games to make it look as though you are right, but in the end such a charade will not make you right.

You asked:

Vic @9.1 ☞ If the ballots that we can't currently see are determined to be fake, what will we hear from you?

I answered:

TiG @9.1.1 If the evidence were to show fraud at a level that would impact the election I would be crying foul and be in support of a full investigation.  

You replied:

Vic @9.1.2Are you now up to answering my question?

You cannot comprehend that I directly answered your question??


What do you expect to gain by ignoring my direct answer and dishonestly claiming I did not answer your question?    What possible positive result does that yield to you?

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
9.1.8  dennis smith  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.1    2 weeks ago

So is any election fraud is found it is okay with you?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @9.1.8    2 weeks ago

Good grief Dennis, how can you get that from what I wrote?

It is like you just make shit up and state it without thinking it through to see if your argument has any potency.


Fraud is never okay.   Fraud is dishonest and likely criminal.

If fraud is found then prosecute the perpetrator.

But if the fraud is not sufficient to change the election then use this as a sign that maybe Biden is indeed the legitimate PotUS and stop this partisan, brain-dead and futile attempt to 'prove' otherwise.

The evidence that Biden won the election legitimately is overwhelming.  

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
9.1.10  dennis smith  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.9    one week ago

9.1.1 - If the evidence were to show fraud at a level that would impact the election I would be crying foul and be in support of a full investigation.

If the evidence were to show fraud at a level that would not impact the election you would just let it go and do nothing about the fraud.

C'mon Man, reread your own comment 9.1.1

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @9.1.10    one week ago

A fine example of ignorant arrogance.   I just told you my position and you have the temerity to tell me that you know better?  

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
9.1.12  dennis smith  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.11    one week ago

Finally in 9.1.9 you said any fraud should be investigated. Until that comment you were claiming something should be done only if fraud changed the election. Ignorant arrogance indeed.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @9.1.12    one week ago

WTF is your problem Dennis?   You incorrectly infer my position and then when I correct you, you argue with me implying you know my position better than I do.

Now you come back implying that I have changed my position during the course of this thread.

It is best to not presume to know the position of your interlocutor unless it is stated.   And once it is stated, accept it as the truth unless you find your interlocutor contradicting him/herself.

Actually it would be best to never argue with someone about their position.  Your interlocutor will know their position better than anyone.   Just accept their stated position rather than engage in trolling (which is exactly what you are doing here).


Bottom line:   Yes, Dennis, I consider fraud to be a crime and I am in favor of prosecuting criminals.   This very common position should be obvious to anyone.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
9.1.14  dennis smith  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.13    one week ago
 Yes, Dennis, I consider fraud to be a crime and I am in favor of prosecuting criminals.   This very common position should be obvious to anyone.

What is obvious to you is not always obvious to everyone.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @9.1.14    one week ago

Look Dennis, we were talking about the election.   You are the one who leaped into criminal charges for people engaging in fraud.

Comments are not meant to be dissertations covering all the possible dimensions of a topic.   They typically focus on an aspect out of necessity.

The aspect I focused on was the impact on the election.   You pretend that since I did not discuss criminal charges that somehow means that I am not in favor of prosecuting criminals.   That is a an entirely stupid presumption.   Why would anyone presume that anyone would not be in favor of prosecuting criminals?  

The answer to this is obvious: you are trolling.   And you are doing it poorly;  your trolling is based on the ridiculous presumption that I would be in favor of letting criminal acts go unpunished.

Cease trolling me now.   Figure out something topical to discuss.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
9.1.16  dennis smith  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.15    one week ago

You are talking about the election. I am talking about fraud. 

You only talked about , if the outcome of the election was not affected. I talked about any fraud being unacceptable. 

You asked Why would anyone presume that anyone would not be in favor of prosecuting criminals? 

The dem mayors and governors were not in favor of prosecuting the criminals who rioted last year including burning police stations, robbing stores, burning police cars etc.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @9.1.16    one week ago

I was talking about the effect of fraud on the election.    Obviously.    Look at the topic.   Buy a vowel.

Thus it was stupid to presume that my not talking about criminal prosecution means I am favor of it.

You have not talked about rape being horrific;  by your ridiculous method one should presume you condone rape.

Low-grade trolling.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
9.1.19  dennis smith  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.17    one week ago

Cherry picking about the effect on fraud on the election only if it changed the election outcome was what you said. 

You opened the flood gates by that comment. 

What in the world does buy a vowel mean?

Rape has nothing to do with voter fraud except in your world. Do stay on topic. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @9.1.19    6 days ago

Read what people write;  read carefully how this thread started:

Vic @9.1 ☞ And by the same token, If the ballots that we can't currently see are determined to be fake, what will we hear from you?

Can you comprehend Vic's question?   The context is election fraud and the greater context is Trump's claim that he won the election but that fraud changed the vote counts.   Get it?   See how easy this is?

Now read my response to Vic slowly so that it all sinks in:

TiG @9.1.1 ☞ What do you think you will hear from me Vic?    If the evidence were to show fraud at a level that would impact the election I would be crying foul and be in support of a full investigation.   I operate on facts, not conspiracy theory.  Do you think this latest attempt is going to result in anything significant?   Given all the investigations / recounts in the past yielded nothing to support Trump's grand lie.

I suspect everyone with the ability to read plain English would see that I answered Vic's question in blue with a direct answer (in blue) and that my answer is that I would be "crying foul and be in support of a full investigation".   I even colored it blue for you.

You, instead of following the discussion, chose to focus on what would happen if there was fraud that did not affect the outcome.   A tangent to the context.   But far worse, you flat out (and dishonestly) presumed that I would be in favor of letting criminals walk.   A truly stupid presumption.

I have since told you that of course I am in favor of prosecuting criminals.

Yet you are still blabbing away.   Low grade trolling.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.21  Dulay  replied to  bccrane @9.1.5    5 days ago
So from these facts can I assume (I know, shouldn't use that word) that Trump's obsession that he in fact won is because he knew of and capitalized the fact that the envelopes could be opened and when he didn't the fraud had to have happened elsewhere just by the evidence and direction of his search.

What Trump 'capitalized' on is the sad number of his followers that were encouraged by Trump throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping something stuck. The bulk of the spaghetti having slid to the floor, they desperately point to the remaining pieces, no matter how irrelevant or ridiculous. 

Would you think that checking into the envelopes to be a valid question to be asking?

How would that be valid? The FACT is, once authenticated, on election day the outer envelopes of mail in ballots are SEPERATED from the ballots. THAT is how the actual votes are kept anonymous. In short, reviewing the envelopes will NOT change the outcome in ANY way because an envelope can no longer be matched up with a ballot. 

How one would suss out whether an envelope was 'opened with heat and resealed' is beyond me. Perhaps we should go back to the days when wax seals were used on official documents. 

Signatures on Georgia mail in ballots are scrutinized much more closely than in person signatures. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
9.2  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @9    2 weeks ago

Now some weirdo is being kicked out of baseball games because he keeps going to games and unfurling a 'trump won' banner.

But oh no, it is the left wing that cannot let him go....

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @9.2    2 weeks ago
Given all the investigations / recounts in the past yielded nothing to support Trump's grand lie.

The Guatemalans are waving that banner in Guatemala too.


OIF.8IiFaGG2l4cOMq01mpr9yA?w=308&h=180&c=7&o=5&pid=1.7

It's kind of catchy!

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
9.2.2  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.2.1    2 weeks ago

It is delusion and kinda sad that you all actually believe it.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
9.2.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.2.1    6 days ago

Pretty gay.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.2.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @9.2.2    6 days ago

That's what your saying.

Tell your friend that is also a strawman argument.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.2.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thrawn 31 @9.2.3    6 days ago

Wouldn't that be offensive to gays?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
9.2.6  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.2.4    6 days ago

I will ask you straight up.

Do you believe the election was stolen?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.2.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @9.2.6    6 days ago
Do you believe the election was stolen?

Why would you ask such a question?  Straight up huh?    Oh, that's what you have in your head. Why not just make an accusation?

I have a better question for you. Did democrats get key state election rules changed early on in the 2020 election?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
9.2.8  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.2.7    5 days ago

So I take it you refuse to answer.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.2.1    5 days ago
The Guatemalans are waving that banner in Guatemala too.

How does Guatemalan's support of the big lie make it any more true Vic? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.2.10  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.2.7    5 days ago
Did democrats get key state election rules changed early on in the 2020 election?

It was not limited to Blue states .   Do you have evidence that these rule changes based on COVID-19 changed the results of the election?

Funny how @ 9.1.1 I directly answered your question (" If the evidence were to show fraud at a level that would impact the election I would be crying foul and be in support of a full investigation. ") yet you dishonestly accused me of playing games.   Here Ender asks you a direct question and you dodge:

Ender @ 9.2.6 Do you believe the election was stolen?

Yes or no.


  Most every state in the union made changes to election rules for the general election in 2020:

Voting procedure modifications for the general election

State Voting-age population Description
Alabama 3,814,879 Absentee/mail-in voting eligibility requirements suspended, allowing all voters to cast ballots by mail in the November 3, 2020, general election.
Alaska 551,562 Witness requirement suspended.
Arizona 5,638,481 Voter registration deadline extended to October 15, 2020.
Arkansas 2,317,649 Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) and Secretary of State John Thurston (R) announced that voters in the November 3, 2020, general election would be allowed to cite concerns over COVID-19 as a valid excuse for voting absentee. Hutchinson subsequently issued an executive order formalizing this policy change.
California 30,617,582 Mail-in ballots sent automatically to all voters in the November 3, 2020, general election. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed SB 423 into law, authorizing counties to consolidate polling places in the November 3, 2020, general election, among other modifications to administration procedures
Colorado 4,499,217 N/A
Connecticut 2,837,847 Mail-in ballot applications sent automatically to all voters in the November 3, 2020, general election. Absentee/mail-in voting eligibility extended to any voter in the November 3, 2020, general election.
Delaware 770,192 Mail-in ballot applications sent automatically to all voters in the November 3, 2020, general election.
Florida 17,247,808 Voter registration deadline extended to October 6, 2020.
Georgia 8,113,542 N/A
Hawaii 1,116,004 N/A
Idaho 1,338,864 N/A
Illinois 9,853,946 Mail-in ballot applications sent to all registered voters in the November 3, 2020, general election who cast ballots in the 2018 general election, the 2019 consolidated election, or the 2020 primary election.
Indiana 5,164,245 N/A
Iowa 2,428,229 Mail-in ballot applications sent automatically to all voters in the November 3, 2020, general election.
Kansas 2,213,064 N/A
Kentucky 3,464,802 Absentee/mail-in voting eligibility requirements suspended, allowing all voters "concerned with contracting or spreading COVID-19" to cast ballots by mail in the November 3, 2020, general election. Early voting available Monday through Saturday beginning October 13, 2020. Affidavit option for voter ID requirement implemented for the November 3, 2020, general election.
Louisiana 3,561,164 Absentee/mail-in voting eligibility extended to the following voters in the November 3, 2020 general election: those at higher risk because of serious medical conditions, those subject to a 'medically necessary quarantine or isolation order,' those advised by a health provider to self-quarantine, those experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis, and those caring for an individual who is subject to a quarantine order and has been advised to self-quarantine.
Maine 1,095,370 The voter pre-registration deadline in the November 3, 2020, general election was extended to October 19, 2020.
Maryland 4,710,993 Mail-in ballot applications sent automatically to all voters in the November 3, 2020, general election. State board of elections to operate a limited number of centralized voting centers in lieu of precinct polling places for in-person voting in the November 3, 2020, general election.
Massachusetts 5,539,703 Absentee/mail-in voting eligibility extended to all qualified voters in the November 3, 2020, general election.
Michigan 7,842,924 Mail-in ballot applications sent automatically to all voters in the November 3, 2020, general election.
Minnesota 4,336,475 The absentee/mail-in ballot postmark deadline for the general election was extended to November 3, 2020. Witness requirements for absentee/mail-in ballots cast in the general election were suspended.
Mississippi 2,277,566 Absentee/mail-in ballot postmark deadline extended to November 3, 2020, for the November 3, 2020, election; receipt deadline extended to November 8, 2020. Absentee voting eligibility extended to individuals under physician-ordered quarantine and individuals caring for dependents under quarantine.
Missouri 4,766,843 Gov. Mike Parson (R) signed SB631 into law, permitting any registered voter to cast an absentee ballot in any 2020 election, subject to a notarization requirement. Individuals who have contracted COVID-19, and those who are at higher risk for contracting the virus, are exempted from the notarization requirement.
Montana 840,190 Counties authorized to send mail-in ballots automatically to all voters in the November 3, 2020, general election.
Nebraska 1,458,334 Mail-in ballot applications sent automatically to all voters in the November 3, 2020, general election.
Nevada 2,387,517 Mail-in ballots sent automatically to all voters in the November 3, 2020, general election.
New Hampshire 1,104,458 Absentee/mail-in voting eligibility in the November 3, 2020, general election extended to any voter who is unable to vote in person because of illness resulting from COVID-19 or 'who fears that voting in person may expose himself/herself or others to COVID-19.'
New Jersey 6,943,612 Mail-in ballots sent automatically to all voters in the November 3, 2020, general election. Receipt deadline for ballots postmarked on or before Election Day extended to November 9, 2020. Receipt deadline for ballots without postmarks set as November 5, 2020.
New Mexico 1,620,991 Counties authorized to send mail-in ballot applications automatically to all voters in the November 3, 2020, election.
New York 15,425,262 Absentee/mail-in voting eligibility in the November 3, 2020, general election extended to any voter 'unable to appear personally at the polling place of the election district in which they are a qualified voter because there is a risk of contracting or spreading a disease causing illness to the voter or to other members of the public.' Online portal launched for absentee ballot requests in the November 3, 2020, general election. Absentee ballot return drop boxes available for the November 3, 2020, general election. Ballot curing provisions expanded.
North Carolina 8,187,369 Witness signature requirement for completed absentee ballots reduced from two to one for 2020 elections. Absentee/mail-in ballot receipt deadline extended to 5 p.m. on November 12, 2020, for ballots postmarked on or before Election Day. Karen Brinson Bell, the executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, issued an emergency order mandating a number of modifications to in-person voting in the November 3, 2020, general election.
North Dakota 581,891 N/A
Ohio 9,111,081 Election officials required to accept absentee ballot applications submitted via fax or email.
Oklahoma 3,004,733 Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) signed SB210 into law, reinstating the absentee ballot notarization requirement struck down by the state supreme court on May 4, 2020. The legislation permitted voters to submit copies of their identification in lieu of having the ballot notarized in the event of a state of emergency occurring within 45 days of an election. The legislation also specified that individuals experiencing symptoms indicative of COVID-19, and individuals classified as vulnerable to infection, could cast an absentee ballot under the 'physical incapacitation' eligibility criterion.
Oregon 3,351,175 N/A
Pennsylvania 10,167,376 Prepaid return postage provided for mail-in and absentee ballots in the November 3, 2020, general election. Absentee/mail-in ballot receipt deadline extended to November 6, 2020 (with a postmark deadline of November 3, 2020, or no proof that the ballot was sent after that date). Drop boxes for returning completed absentee/mail-in ballots authorized.
Rhode Island 854,866 Mail-in ballot applications sent automatically to all voters in the November 3, 2020, general election. Witness/notary requirements for mail-in ballots suspended for the November 3, 2020, general election.
South Carolina 4,037,531 Absentee/mail-in voting eligibility extended to all active registered voters in the November 3, 2020, general election. Prepaid postage provided for all returned ballots in the November 3, 2020, general election. In-person absentee voting (i.e., early voting) set to begin October 5, 2020, and end November 2, 2020.
South Dakota 667,558 N/A
Tennessee 5,319,123 Absentee/mail-in ballot eligibility in the November 3, 2020, general election extended to 'individuals with a special vulnerability to COVID-19' and 'caretakers for individuals with a special vulnerability to COVID-19.' Policy requiring that first-time voters to vote in person temporarily suspended.
Texas 21,596,071 Early voting period for the November 3, 2020, general election extended by six days to open on October 13, 2020, instead of October 19, 2020, as originally scheduled. Voters required to be notified if their absentee ballots might be rejected due to signature mismatch; officials required to give such voters a 'meaningful opportunity to cure' their ballots. Absentee/mail-in return locations limited to one per county.
Utah 2,274,774 Gov. Gary Herbert (R) signed legislation that made several changes to administration procedures for the November 3, 2020, general election (including the requirement that counties provide some form of in-person Election Day and early voting).
Vermont 509,984 Mail-in ballots sent automatically to all voters in the November 3, 2020, general election.
Virginia 6,674,671 A federal court approved a partial settlement suspending the witness requirement for absentee ballots cast in the November 3, 2020, general election. Gov. Ralph Northam (D) signed into law legislation providing for the use of drop-boxes and prepaid absentee/mail-in ballot return postage in the November 3, 2020, general election. Voter registration deadline extended to October 15, 2020.
Washington 5,951,832 N/A
Washington, D. C. 684,498 Absentee/mail-in ballots sent automatically to all voters in the November 3, 2020, general election.
West Virginia 1,432,580 Absentee/mail-in ballot eligibility in the November 3, 2020, general election extended to all voters 'concerns about their health and safety because of COVID-19.' Secretary of State Mac Warner (R) also announced the implementation of an online absentee/mail-in ballot request portal for the general election.
Wisconsin 4,555,837 Mail-in ballot applications sent automatically to most voters in the November 3, 2020, general election.
Wyoming 445,025 N/A

Absentee/mail-in voting procedure modifications for the general election

State Voting-age population Description
Alabama 3,814,879 Absentee/mail-in voting eligibility requirements suspended, allowing all voters to cast ballots by mail in the November 3, 2020, general election.
Alaska 551,562 Witness requirement suspended.
Arizona 5,638,481 N/A
Arkansas 2,317,649 Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) and Secretary of State John Thurston (R) announced that voters in the November 3, 2020, general election would be allowed to cite concerns over COVID-19 as a valid excuse for voting absentee. Hutchinson subsequently issued an executive order formalizing this policy change.
California 30,617,582 Mail-in ballots sent automatically to all voters in the November 3, 2020, general election. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed SB 423 into law, authorizing counties to consolidate polling places in the November 3, 2020, general election, among other modifications to administration procedures
Colorado 4,499,217 N/A
Connecticut 2,837,847 Mail-in ballot applications sent automatically to all voters in the November 3, 2020, general election. Absentee/mail-in voting eligibility extended to any voter in the November 3, 2020, general election.
Delaware 770,192 Mail-in ballot applications sent automatically to all voters in the November 3, 2020, general election.
Florida 17,247,808 N/A
Georgia 8,113,542 N/A
Hawaii 1,116,004 N/A
Idaho 1,338,864 N/A
Illinois 9,853,946 Mail-in ballot applications sent to all registered voters in the November 3, 2020, general election who cast ballots in the 2018 general election, the 2019 consolidated election, or the 2020 primary election.
Indiana 5,164,245 N/A
Iowa 2,428,229 Mail-in ballot applications sent automatically to all voters in the November 3, 2020, general election.
Kansas 2,213,064 N/A
Kentucky 3,464,802 Absentee/mail-in voting eligibility requirements suspended, allowing all voters "concerned with contracting or spreading COVID-19" to cast ballots by mail in the November 3, 2020, general election. Early voting available Monday through Saturday beginning October 13, 2020. Affidavit option for voter ID requirement implemented for the November 3, 2020, general election.
Louisiana 3,561,164 Absentee/mail-in voting eligibility extended to the following voters in the November 3, 2020 general election: those at higher risk because of serious medical conditions, those subject to a 'medically necessary quarantine or isolation order,' those advised by a health provider to self-quarantine, those experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis, and those caring for an individual who is subject to a quarantine order and has been advised to self-quarantine.
Maine 1,095,370 The voter pre-registration deadline in the November 3, 2020, general election was extended to October 19, 2020.
Maryland 4,710,993 Mail-in ballot applications sent automatically to all voters in the November 3, 2020, general election.
Massachusetts 5,539,703 Absentee/mail-in voting eligibility extended to all qualified voters in the November 3, 2020, general election.
Michigan 7,842,924 Mail-in ballot applications sent automatically to all voters in the November 3, 2020, general election.
Minnesota 4,336,475 The absentee/mail-in ballot postmark deadline for the general election was extended to November 3, 2020. Witness requirements for absentee/mail-in ballots cast in the general election were suspended.
Mississippi 2,277,566 Absentee/mail-in ballot postmark deadline extended to November 3, 2020, for the November 3, 2020, election; receipt deadline extended to November 8, 2020. Absentee voting eligibility extended to individuals under physician-ordered quarantine and individuals caring for dependents under quarantine.
Missouri 4,766,843 Gov. Mike Parson (R) signed SB631 into law, permitting any registered voter to cast an absentee ballot in any 2020 election, subject to a notarization requirement. Individuals who have contracted COVID-19, and those who are at higher risk for contracting the virus, are exempted from the notarization requirement.
Montana 840,190 Counties authorized to send mail-in ballots automatically to all voters in the November 3, 2020, general election.
Nebraska 1,458,334 Mail-in ballot applications sent automatically to all voters in the November 3, 2020, general election.
Nevada 2,387,517 Mail-in ballots sent automatically to all voters in the November 3, 2020, general election.
New Hampshire 1,104,458 Absentee/mail-in voting eligibility in the November 3, 2020, general election extended to any voter who is unable to vote in person because of illness resulting from COVID-19 or 'who fears that voting in person may expose himself/herself or others to COVID-19.'
New Jersey 6,943,612 Mail-in ballots sent automatically to all voters in the November 3, 2020, general election. Receipt deadline for ballots postmarked on or before Election Day extended to November 9, 2020. Receipt deadline for ballots without postmarks set as November 5, 2020.
New Mexico 1,620,991 Counties authorized to send mail-in ballot applications automatically to all voters in the November 3, 2020, election.
New York 15,425,262 Absentee/mail-in voting eligibility in the November 3, 2020, general election extended to any voter 'unable to appear personally at the polling place of the election district in which they are a qualified voter because there is a risk of contracting or spreading a disease causing illness to the voter or to other members of the public.' Online portal launched for absentee ballot requests in the November 3, 2020, general election. Absentee ballot return drop boxes available for the November 3, 2020, general election. Ballot curing provisions expanded.
North Carolina 8,187,369 Witness signature requirement for completed absentee ballots reduced from two to one for 2020 elections. Absentee/mail-in ballot receipt deadline extended to 5 p.m. on November 12, 2020, for ballots postmarked on or before Election Day..
North Dakota 581,891 N/A
Ohio 9,111,081 Election officials required to accept absentee ballot applications submitted via fax or email.
Oklahoma 3,004,733 Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) signed SB210 into law, reinstating the absentee ballot notarization requirement struck down by the state supreme court on May 4, 2020. The legislation permitted voters to submit copies of their identification in lieu of having the ballot notarized in the event of a state of emergency occurring within 45 days of an election. The legislation also specified that individuals experiencing symptoms indicative of COVID-19, and individuals classified as vulnerable to infection, could cast an absentee ballot under the 'physical incapacitation' eligibility criterion.
Oregon 3,351,175 N/A
Pennsylvania 10,167,376 Prepaid return postage provided for mail-in and absentee ballots in the November 3, 2020, general election. Absentee/mail-in ballot receipt deadline extended to November 6, 2020 (with a postmark deadline of November 3, 2020, or no proof that the ballot was sent after that date). Drop boxes for returning completed absentee/mail-in ballots authorized.
Rhode Island 854,866 Mail-in ballot applications sent automatically to all voters in the November 3, 2020, general election. Witness/notary requirements for mail-in ballots suspended for the November 3, 2020, general election.
South Carolina 4,037,531 Absentee/mail-in voting eligibility extended to all active registered voters in the November 3, 2020, general election. Prepaid postage provided for all returned ballots in the November 3, 2020, general election. In-person absentee voting (i.e., early voting) set to begin October 5, 2020, and end November 2, 2020.
South Dakota 667,558 N/A
Tennessee 5,319,123 Absentee/mail-in ballot eligibility in the November 3, 2020, general election extended to 'individuals with a special vulnerability to COVID-19' and 'caretakers for individuals with a special vulnerability to COVID-19.' Policy requiring that first-time voters vote in person temporarily suspended.
Texas 21,596,071 Voters required to be notified if their absentee ballots might be rejected due to signature mismatch; officials required to give such voters a 'meaningful opportunity to cure' their ballots. Absentee/mail-in return locations limited to one per county.
Utah 2,274,774 N/A
Vermont 509,984 Mail-in ballots sent automatically to all voters in the November 3, 2020, general election.
Virginia 6,674,671 A federal court approved a partial settlement suspending the witness requirement for absentee ballots cast in the November 3, 2020, general election. Gov. Ralph Northam (D) signed into law legislation providing for the use of drop-boxes and prepaid absentee/mail-in ballot return postage in the November 3, 2020, general election.
Washington 5,951,832 N/A
Washington, D. C. 684,498 Absentee/mail-in ballots sent automatically to all voters in the November 3, 2020, general election.
West Virginia 1,432,580 Absentee/mail-in ballot eligibility in the November 3, 2020, general election extended to all voters 'concerns about their health and safety because of COVID-19.' Secretary of State Mac Warner (R) also announced the implementation of an online absentee/mail-in ballot request portal for the general election.
Wisconsin 4,555,837 Mail-in ballot applications sent automatically to most voters in the November 3, 2020, general election.
Wyoming 445,025 N/A
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.2.11  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @9.2.10    5 days ago
Do you have evidence that these rule changes based on COVID-19 changed the results of the election?

Nobody does. The simple fact is they were changed and changed to favor democrats. Again - only state legislatures had the right to do that.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.2.12  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.2.11    5 days ago
Nobody does.
The simple fact is they were changed and changed to favor democrats.

I hope that 'our readers' will note that those two sentences are contradictory. 

Again - only state legislatures had the right to do that.

Well gee Vic, after all of Trump's litigation, one would think there would be EVIDENCE of your claim. 

There is NONE. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
9.2.13  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.2.11    5 days ago

original

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.2.14  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @9.2.12    5 days ago
I hope that 'our readers' will note that those two sentences are contradictory. 

Only with twisted logic. One can change the rules to favor a certain party without having much impact. Big money has proven less effective than the message. 

So MS wordsmith, you may want to reconsider what is "contradictory."

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.2.15  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.2.11    5 days ago

You again ignore Ender's question:

Ender @ 9.2.6 Do you believe the election was stolen?

The logical conclusion then is that you believe the election was stolen.   How on Earth can you believe the election was stolen??

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.2.16  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.2.11    5 days ago
Nobody does. The simple fact is they were changed and changed to favor democrats. Again - only state legislatures had the right to do that.

You are merely making claims while ignoring the facts I just delivered.

Without evidence you are simply speculating.   That is the makings of conspiracy theories.   Seems the R party has completely lost its way and is operating on one conspiracy theory after another.

What a pathetic state for a party to devolve into.  I remain surprised that the R party does not see how this continued support for Trump's 2-month con-job continues to damage the party.   It is short-sighted and irresponsible.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
9.2.17  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @9.2.15    5 days ago

Yep. I am taking the evasion as a yes.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.2.18  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @9.2.17    5 days ago

How can anyone believe the election was stolen??    The level of irrationality among the electorate (heavily on the R side now) is well beyond my most pessimistic expectations.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
9.2.19  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @9.2.18    5 days ago
How can anyone believe the election was stolen??    The level of irrationality among the electorate (heavily on the R side now)

I think you answered your own question TiG.

You are merely making claims while ignoring the facts I just delivered.

That's not surprising. Acknowledging the facts would mean acknowledging that one was wrong.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.2.20  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.2.14    5 days ago
Only with twisted logic. One can change the rules to favor a certain party without having much impact.

ANY impact that 'favors a certain party' would inherently 'change the results' Vic. The question wasn't about winners or losers, it was about 'results'. 

You insisted that nobody has evidence and then insist that you KNOW that changes 'favor democrats'. THAT is contradictory Vic.

Unless of course, you're willing to admit that you came to your conclusion sans evidence OR that YOU are 'nobody'. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.2.21  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @9.2.20    5 days ago
You insisted that nobody has evidence and then insist that you KNOW that changes 'favor democrats'. THAT is contradictory Vic.

In 2016 Clinton spent far more money than Trump. That favored her. She lost anyway!

No contradiction.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.2.22  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @9.2.18    5 days ago

You see Ender doesn't want to debate the established fact that election rules were changed in 2020. He would rather saddle me with "the election was stolen" nonsense. Somethin I've NEVER said.

Part of the reason for that is that Ender seems to believe that is what I think, or maybe what al Trump supporters think. 

Ender is going to have to either accept or deny that the rules got changed. If those rules weren't changed we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
9.2.23  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.2.22    4 days ago

Nope. We are here and you are using me as fodder.

You just refuse to answer the question directly.

So I will ask again, a simple yes or no question...

Do you believe the election was stolen?

Yes or no.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.2.24  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.2.22    4 days ago
You see Ender doesn't want to debate the established fact that election rules were changed in 2020.

Who would want to debate a fact?   Of course they were changed.   We all know that.   Note that Ender voted up my comment @9.2.10 where I listed the election rule changes.

So, yes, Vic, election rules were changed in 2020.

What is the point of you arguing that changes were made unless you are trying to support Trump's lie that he won?

He would rather saddle me with "the election was stolen" nonsense. Something I've NEVER said.

You may have never written that the election was stolen but you are implicitly arguing that it was and you refuse to state that it was NOT stolen.

Such games are transparent and diminish one's credibility.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
9.2.25  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @9.2.24    4 days ago
Of course they were changed

Why would I deny that? Yes changes happened, mostly about mail in and early voting, if I am not mistaken.

That it would have an impact on one particular party over another I will deny. Mail in and early voting are non partisan.

I am kinda surprised that some people have not listed the pandemic as some sinister plot to over throw donald.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.2.26  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @9.2.25    4 days ago
Why would I deny that?

Exactly!   The question is why Vic wants you to debate the obvious.   Very strange.

That it would have an impact on one particular party over another I will deny. Mail in and early voting are non partisan.

Well has Vic provided any evidence that one party benefited from the changes?    Seems to me that in the 2020 election, the Ds lost seats in the House and the Rs held off the Senate better than they thought (except for the runoff in GA which no doubt went to the Ds because of Trump's disgusting, petulant lying after he had lost — in the general election both R candidates from GA were ahead of their D opponents).    Surely Vic would not argue that the Rs net benefited from the election rule changes yet clearly the Rs did better than the Ds.

If Vic wants to claim the D party had an advantage then he must be talking about Biden winning;  so where is the evidence that the election rule changes lead to Biden winning?   

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
9.2.27  pat wilson  replied to  Ender @9.2.25    4 days ago
I am kinda surprised that some people have not listed the pandemic as some sinister plot to over throw donald.

I think there are many that have.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
9.2.28  Ender  replied to  pat wilson @9.2.27    4 days ago

Good grief. I should not be surprised.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.2.29  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @9.2.25    4 days ago
I am kinda surprised that some people have not listed the pandemic as some sinister plot to over throw donald.

Vic a few weeks back argued that the Chinese government used the accidental Wuhan virus release as an opportunity to get Trump out of office (indirectly) by allowing international travel and thus infecting the entire planet (see the thread starting here ).   Vic added that the Chinese government does not care what the world thinks of them so global politics was not a factor for them.   It was, per Vic, worth it to them for the chance to rid themselves of Trump.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
9.2.30  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @9.2.29    4 days ago

Yeah, that was a good one. But nowadays, when some people still think the election was stolen, it does not surprise me either. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.2.31  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @9.2.30    4 days ago

Seems to me that there are many people who want a particular reality and will believe whatever is necessary to achieve said reality (in their minds).   Look at all these Trump supporters that to this day insist the election was stolen.   This is beyond irrational into pure delusion.   Yet millions of our fellow citizens suffer from this delusion.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.32  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @9.2.25    4 days ago
That it would have an impact on one particular party over another I will deny. Mail in and early voting are non partisan.

So then we will hear no complaints when rules are changed--that they aren't targeting anyone in particular? 

Great news at long last!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.2.33  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.32    4 days ago

Do you have any evidence that these rule changes gave advantage to Biden?   Anything?

Note:   the Ds lost House seats and the Rs almost held the Senate despite expectations of losing it.   On election day, the GA R senatorial candidates had more votes than their D counterparts (after Trump's lying con-job the GA D candidates prevailed in the runoff).   How did these rule changes serve as a D advantage??

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.34  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @9.2.33    4 days ago
Do you have any evidence that these rule changes gave advantage to Biden?   Anything?

Nope, which makes a lot of fucking sense since it isn't something I have claimed.

You seem intent on arguing things I haven't claimed.

Bad form.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
9.2.35  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @9.2.31    4 days ago
Seems to me that there are many people who want a particular reality and will believe whatever is necessary to achieve said reality (in their minds). 

Both in politics and religion it seems.

Look at all these Trump supporters that to this day insist the election was stolen.   This is beyond irrational into pure delusion.

It's insanity.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.2.36  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.34    4 days ago

So you do not support the speculation that rule changes favored the Ds more than the Rs?

To wit, you disagree with Vic?

(I predict a dodge.)