Georgia poll watchers' concerns about Biden ballots appearing photocopied led to watchdog inspection
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • 3 years ago • 379 commentsBy: Joseph Weber (Just The News)
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
Who is online
94 visitors
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?
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.
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.
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.
That's fair enough. Shouldn't we look at them?
The better question is: Why the persistence?
It sounds like O J Simpson.
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?
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.
Yes it does, pretending to look for someone or something that isn't there to keep an illusion alive.
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.
Whose resistance? There are 2 teams at play and both are resisting.
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.
I think he looks like Lenin.
(Trotsky was much more intelligent than that!)
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!)
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?
Thanks for the truth as always Dulay! You know how that's frowned upon here!
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?
Yes, a Trump appointed Judge ruled against her and Lin Wood.
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.
Why not?
After all...wouldn't you do the same thing if your avatar looked like Vladimir Lenin???
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.
'...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?
What would Stalin say?
You cite Dulay's words in reply to me ... in error, I presume.
[deleted]
[deleted]
'...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.
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?
So why the resistance?
Perhaps an element of truth in the accusation?
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.
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?
Reading is fundamental.
This is the penalty for perjury in Georgia.
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.
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.
I repeat, I wonder how much these poll workers were paid to say what they said?
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".
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.
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.
It is a loss if the ballots are looked at and found to be valid.
See how simple it is!
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.
And how many times do you want to look at them? The people doing the counting did not notice a difference.
Ha Ha. Thats a good one. Given enough time, I'm sure the crackpots will get to it.
I'm sure they caught a whiff of soy sauce.
Guess trump has never been in Georgia, eh?
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.
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.
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.
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.
[deleted]
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.
[deleted]
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.
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.
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?
(deleted)
Oh Tess, you shouldn't have changed it. Here I thought you were about to answer all our questions!
How about a far left site lite NBC?
Here John:
That's Check
Obviously mate, you don't play chess.
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.
The position is checkmate, obviously puns are not your forté mate.
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.
A recount? That would be a complete waste of time. If those ballots are fakes they would simply be recounted. NOBODY WANTS A RECOUNT!
Don't worry, someday you might be able to contradict me.
I havent played chess in a LONG time, but even I know that is checkmate.
'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!
I do it every day, you are easy.
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.
Never stop a man who is playing the Fool's Gambit.
That 'someday' is irrefutably TODAY.
'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 ...
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.
And every other day!
Be fair with Vic? Surely you jest.
Sure, why not? If someone is unfair with me I do not reciprocate; I prefer instead to expose the unfairness.
Says the man whose avatar looks like Lenin!
Pshaw!
(Show me The Bamboo fibers in the paper, OK?)
Ain't that the truth.
[deleted]
'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.
If elections cannot be trusted, maybe "one person one vote" democracy isn't the best method to establish a country's government.
What would be to you?
If I knew I would have said it - all I did was imply a question that was in my mind.
Don't answer that Buzz-- it's a trap!
With the electoral college, there is no "one person one vote".
Certainly with the Democrat's superdelegates.
Whoosh right over your head.
You get used to it with some people.
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.
No flags for people who question sources of widely known news stories?
There should be!
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?
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?
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.
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.
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!
Oh I dont think the prosecutors in NY state need any more help. The controller from Trump's company is cooperating.
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.
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.
Then where are the charges?
John says he committed tax fraud!!!!
We will be watching with baited breath!
GOOD !
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!
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.
Not on knowledge, but on interests. I care about this country.
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.
And I assume where you live the state doesn't leak tax information.
Can I ask you to stop talking smack about NY. I don't talk it about your home state.
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.
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?
It is a big story in Forbes:
And then there is the IRS employee who leaked Trump's returns:
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.
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.
Absolutely not. The county assesses our homes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Floriduh
lol.
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.
Tess,
Kind of proving Bugsy's point.
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.
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.
I don't care what bugsy's point is or what he has to say.
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.
So ten years and nothing???? Is this one of those "show me the man and I'll show you the crime" things?
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.
You know how I feel about Saratoga, Belmont and Aqueduct? How could you think such things?
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.
Sunshine,
They did the same thing with Loretta Helmsley. Trump's investigation has been going on since 2011.
I know you love NY, and the feeling is mutual with your home state.
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)
Mueller, Congress, and the IRS through countless investigations couldn't put him jail but by golly the State of New York will.
There is a lot less to see here.
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.
But your linked article says differently..........
Mueller was never going to charge him and congress was not going to put him in jail.
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.
You obviously understand very little.
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.
Because there were no crimes committed. If there were, he'd have been arrested by now.
Do you imagine they could?
I am not the one with the false impression that they could. Maybe you should talk to your friend.
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.
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.
Oh gee...We all know how serious it is lying about a blowjob. The end of the fucking world...
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 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.
John isn't at all angry. It appears that you are.
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.
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....
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.
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.
Wow. You need to remind me off all these countless investigations that occurred before he was president.
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.
You must have missed Vic's #6 post from 3 HOURS ago which sure as hell broadened the 'topic' to include 'the Donald'.
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.
All that does is get the loons on here worked up and double down on their insults.
Well, you're one person, however, pretty much everyone feels the same about you.....including most of the lefties.
No, not including most of the lefties.
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.
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?
Again...(jeez)...Mueller was never going to charge him.
He was never going to come back and do it...
How is that sexual harassment?
The woman freely gave him a blowjob.
The only thing he was charged with was lying about it.
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.
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.
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...
No you think you are being clever when you are not.
Right, and Mueller's not the Special Counsel now is he?
Right, he isn't.
Excellent recognition there.
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.
Almost as revelatory as Sean's statement...
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.
Keep working on this. You can get there.
Here's a hint. Merrick Garland.
What is revelatory is your "understanding" of what is being written.
Weird that you all think just because someone was never charged they could not have committed a crime.
Reminds me of Hill and Bill.
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.
Yes, perjury and obstruction of justice are serious crimes. Clinton was guilty of both.
Well, he thinks he still is!
(As do many of his loony supporters-- Coo Coo for Cocoa Puffs!)
Now you're just posting argle bargle.
I'd advise that in the future you take a breath before you post whiny triggered replies.
There's no work to be done Sean. The comment you replied to was about Mueller charging Trump.
Your failed deflection is noted.
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.
Your failed deflection is noted.
Not embarrassed at all Sean. You're projecting.
Why would I want to deflect from your whiny triggered reply Sean?
How is citing a fact a deflection Sean? Please be specific.
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.
You really need to look up what the word deflection means. How do you not understand that? This is basic stuff.
What a load of crap.
Again, he said he was never going to. Really not that hard to understand...
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.
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.
Have you read this thread?
Time to look in a mirror...
The 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.
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...
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.
It is what you have been claiming. Deny all you want.
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.
Nope.
Containing myself by saying you are projecting is a mindful kindness Sean.
More projection.
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.
The 'basic stuff' is YOU explaining your claim after being asked to do so instead of deflecting to the definition of deflection.
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...
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.
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.
It was no accident.
Bad job with the comprehension. READ more carefully.
Since there is none, you 'guess' right.
Oh but they DO mind their foolishness being pointed out to them.
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?
"
[Deleted]
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.
Is META OK for conservatives bugsy?
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.
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?
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.
We await your continuing vote for Trump after he shoots someone in the middle of 5th avenue. It is inevitable.
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.
He also led an effective, yet controversial bombing of Japan during WWII
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.
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.
War is hell, John. The idea is to end it quickly.
I think that was the idea behind Agent Orange. That worked out well.
Vietnam wasn't an example of trying to win a war, let alone ending it quickly.
Well, Trump DID want to nuke hurricanes....
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
You mean kinda sorta like the re-re-re-re-counts and those alleged three counts of Biden ballots appearing photocopied?
Wow, I sure as hell hope you haven't flagged anyone for being off topic. The hypocrisy would be galactic.
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?
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?
(deleted)
Then you thought wrong....
Talking to yourself now?
Hypocrisy is STILL hypocrisy Vic...
Exactly!
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.
Ridiculous.
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!
You need a crime to investigate. Otherwise we have just become the Soviet Union.
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.
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.
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.
Yes they do. Benghazi comes to mind. Or emails...
Or how many investigations did the republicans have during the Obama years?
Hilarious, considering...
We just went through four years of hate and now you are going to put it all on others...
Whatever you gotta tell yourself.
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.
They never accept responsibility for anything - trumpturd or his 'followers'.
When has trumpturd ever told the truth about anything?
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.
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!)
Don't forget the hoisin sauce stains.
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.
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?
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'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?
Read my answer. I answered your question. You play games by accusing me of same.
I rest my case.
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?
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.
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:
I answered:
You replied:
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?
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.
A fine example of ignorant arrogance. I just told you my position and you have the temerity to tell me that you know better?
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.
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.
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.
Read what people write; read carefully how this thread started:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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....
The Guatemalans are waving that banner in Guatemala too.
It's kind of catchy!
It is delusion and kinda sad that you all actually believe it.
Pretty gay.
That's what your saying.
Tell your friend that is also a strawman argument.
Wouldn't that be offensive to gays?
I will ask you straight up.
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?
So I take it you refuse to answer.
How does Guatemalan's support of the big lie make it any more true Vic?
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:
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
Absentee/mail-in voting procedure modifications for the general 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.
I hope that 'our readers' will note that those two sentences are contradictory.
Well gee Vic, after all of Trump's litigation, one would think there would be EVIDENCE of your claim.
There is NONE.
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."
You again ignore Ender's question:
The logical conclusion then is that you believe the election was stolen. How on Earth can you believe the election was stolen??
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.
Yep. I am taking the evasion as a yes.
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.
I think you answered your own question TiG.
That's not surprising. Acknowledging the facts would mean acknowledging that one was wrong.
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'.
In 2016 Clinton spent far more money than Trump. That favored her. She lost anyway!
No contradiction.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Exactly! The question is why Vic wants you to debate the obvious. Very strange.
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?
I think there are many that have.
Good grief. I should not be surprised.
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.
Yeah, that was a good one. But nowadays, when some people still think the election was stolen, it does not surprise me either.
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.
So then we will hear no complaints when rules are changed--that they aren't targeting anyone in particular?
Great news at long last!
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??
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.
Both in politics and religion it seems.
It's insanity.
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.)
Probably a guarantee.
Did you SEE that coming from me?
I don't believe it made any difference just like I don't believe changing them back is discriminatory to any one group, despite claims to the contrary.
Please keep your little predictions to yourself.
Amazing how so many can be so consistently wrong.
Well there you go, Vic. Texan does not see things your way either.
Why don't you address your remarks to Vic instead of me if THAT is who you want to talk to?
See, Vic and I don't need anyone to tell us how to think.
We think on our own.
Try it!
I have. Have you missed my comments in this thread? They are still there, read them.
Really, Texan, you actually are insinuating that I do not think on my own? Now that is whole-cloth bullshit.
It is interesting, however, that even you part ways with Vic on his belief that the election rule changes helped the Ds (which, by the evidence, could only mean help Biden).
Haven't missed any.
I am sure you may have some excuse for talking to Vic specifically in a comment direct to ME--post 9.2.40. It is right there and hence MY comment. See how it works now?
I'll believe it when I see it.
Your comments to me on this thread are almost comical if they weren't so darn sad.
Again, if you want to talk to Vic, address your comments TO him.
I Ain't him!
It is interesting, however, that even you part ways with Vic on his belief that the election rule changes helped the Ds (which, by the evidence, could only mean help Biden).
Sigh.
Once again, if you want to discuss what Vic thinks, do it with him.
It really isn't as hard as you make it appear.
That statement either constitutes ignorance or blatant dishonesty.
Post 9.2.11 The simple fact is they were changed and changed to favor democrats.
Nowhere did I say that the changes actually helped or hindered the democrats. It is about intent rather than result.
If you don't like people questioning the election, you should have been right in there complaining when Marc Elias was filing all those law suits to change election rules in key battleground states. If those rules weren't changed the way they were, there wouldn't be any complaints. The mere fact that Nancy Pelosi wants to incorporate those changes into federal law tells us that the democrats believe the changes did help Biden. I on the other hand, never went that far.
Because it is a stupid question and is irrelevant to the conversation.
The logical conclusion then is that you believe the election was stolen.
No, the logical conclusion is that he is seeking someone who believes the election was stolen. Anyone who reads these threads knows that I don't believe that. Is that supposed to be some kind of idiotic litmus test? The fact you and he can't escape is that Marc Elias and the democrats got election laws changed in battleground states in order to defeat Donald Trump.
GAME, SET, MATCH - YOUR'E DONE!
I think if you only wait long enough, he'll tell you what you thought and what your posts really mean.
I'm sure, If it wasn't for the Code of Conduct!
Hardly. It is you that refuses to answer a simple question. Then get pissy because you say people don't understand you or are trying to say you are a certain way.
Well guess what, if you will not be clear or clear the air, expect people to make assumptions.
Now have fun, as for me there is no point in even having a conversation [Deleted]
Ha ha ha ha ha, you couldn't match wits with TiG if your life depended on it, LOL
Read it over the weekend, it's a screen that could use a few more holes in it to keep some from hiding behind it.
Tig can be formidable at times.
[deleted]
Splitting hairs Vic? You make a big deal claiming that the rules were changed to favor democrats but now equivocate stating that you did not mean to suggest that this actually happened.
Well if there was no net advantage why do you keep going on and on about these rule changes?
So do you believe Biden legitimately won the presidency?
Please read post 9.2.48.
He already answered that.
Unless you are going to tell us he really meant something else when he posted the answer.
How funny, you actually engage in the ploy of simply declaring victory? As if ...
Idiotic litmus test might be a good way to describe it.
Escape? Vic, partisans have been playing games trying to gain an advantage for as long as I can remember; probably from the very beginning of our nation. This is nothing new. You act as though this is new for 2020.
We know there is fraud; we know parties push the envelopes (and even break rules). Nothing new unless one has been living under a rock. What matters is not that there are dishonest opportunists but if they were able to make a difference.
Since you are implying that you believe Biden won fair and square, why are you constantly talking about this in 2020 as if this is the only year where shenanigans existed?
Biden won legitimately; you acknowledge this. It is over. Unless you are trying to prosecute those who broke laws, what are you trying to accomplish?
By the way, opportunism will continue and likely will worsen; gird your loins.
I was replying to the posts in order: 9.2.47 precedes 9.2.48. Ascending order ... and all that. Since all you seem to have are weak 'gotcha' attempts, maybe you can go check my spelling and grammar now.
Read my post @9.2.57 (this is my reply to @9.2.48).
I apologize, I erroneously assumed that you would read more than one reply to any of your comments before commenting again, especially after an hour had elapsed.
Forgive me?
Yeah, Texan, for future reference, I do not read all the comments before replying. I take each comment in order.
Why not? He's just following in his Masters footsteps...like when Trump declared he won the Presidency before all the votes, including the EC votes, were counted, which he tried to prevent from happening. So why would Vic not be expected to claim victory before the debate has ended.
Seriously Vic, that is the biggest irrelevant deflection I have read from you and that is saying something.
You're not even trying to make cogent replies anymore.
Do you ever stop? The rules were changes. Whether or not they influenced the results we may never know.
It's really simple!
Yes, Vic, as I have noted repeatedly, the rules did change. I gave you a list of the changes @9.2.10. The fact of rule changes is not in dispute. Why are you pretending it is in dispute?
Correct. So why do you continue to opine and argue about this? What is the point unless you have evidence that shows these rule changes somehow changed the election?
You are the one who continues to make an issue out of the 2020 election. You keep posting seeds and posting comments. And you have the temerity to suggest that I am the one who never stops?
Unbelievable Vic.
Yes it is. So why do you keep posting seeds and trying to make an issue out of something that you admit is not and likely never will be evidenced?
Obsession? Or maybe disappointment that his guy didn't win?
We all agree that the rules were changed.
We all (appear) to agree that there is no evidence that any of these changes affected the results of the election (either way).
We all (likely) agree that fraud, foul play, mistakes, etc. are historically part of the election process and will continue with future elections.
We all (appear) to agree that Biden is the legitimate PotUS.
So no real point is being made.
Agreed on all points.
The real point is that you should expect people to question an election in which rules were changed !
That took a long time!
And yet the damn gop is right now changing the voting rules everywhere they can to make it even harder for people to vote. Why are you not just as worried about that? Or, do you only care when you falsely believe that only the gop is being adversely affected?
hahaha. If people want to vote, they will vote. If an inconvenience intervenes in their desire, it wasn't really there or that important to begin with. Evidence? The 2020 election where the only effort it took for some millions was the walk to the mailbox, marking the ballot, and walking back to the mailbox. Everyone should vote but again, if it isn't convenient enough for some, perhaps they really don't need to be voting anyway. It is a right to be exercised NOT an "only if you cater to MY needs and whims" proposition.
Sure, it is reasonable to question. And it is reasonable to audit the changes.
It is irrational to obsess on it; especially more than ½ year later.
I'm not sure who the obsessed are......Those who now lack confidence in the process or those who keep jumping up and down saying "nobody can prove anything?"
Well this is very simple.
Those who are still obsessing over election rule changes that occurred last year and have no evidence that suggests these changes made any difference in the elections (either way) and who recognize that no evidence is likely to come are being irrational.
Those who challenge the irrationality are being rational.
To wit, follow the evidence rather than leap to a conspiracy theory.
Would that be the democrats in the US Senate who will be voting to make those changes federal law tomorrow?
Those who challenge the irrationality are being rational.
That statement belongs to "1984" where irrational was rational.
Perhaps you missed this above................................
This is what you call evidence that the rule changes made a difference in the election??
You call that obsessing?
Obsessing is seeding articles about election rule changes made in 2020 that have no evidence suggesting they made any effect on the election results.
It indicates that they think the rule changes worked. (Not me - the democrats!)
Donald Trump was told by his campaign manager that if he could get 64 Million votes he would win. He got over 74 Million and still lost. I'm afraid that historians and others will be looking at the 2020 election for years to come. I'm sure that partisan democrats will tell them not to obsess over it!
You write this after affirming that Biden legitimately won and Trump legitimately lost.
Biden got more electoral votes than Trump. It does not matter what Trump's campaign manager predicted regarding popular vote. Clearly he was wrong.
You interpret a high voter turnout election (where both candidates received historic numbers of votes) as foul play by the Ds. And you somehow never seem to recognize that the Rs did better than expected (on election night) in both the House and the Senate.
So you affirm Biden won legitimately and know that the Rs did better than expected in the House and Senate (on election night) yet still try to make an incredibly weak vague claim that while legitimate, the election was not legitimate.
It is always best to follow the evidence to where it leads even if it leads to a reality you wish were not true.
Far better than the tortured logic and equivocation one suffers trying to have it both ways.
Correct.
You interpret a high voter turnout election (where both candidates received historic numbers of votes) as foul play by the Ds. And you somehow never seem to recognize that the Rs did better than expected (on election night) in both the House and the Senate.
I didn't do anything.
So you affirm Biden won legitimately and know that the Rs did better than expected in the House and Senate (on election night) yet still try to make an incredibly weak vague claim that while legitimate, the election was not legitimate.
Clearly false.
Our readers must be bored to tears by now. My only point, for the third time, is that if election rules are changed to benefit one candidate/party then nobody should be surprised when the results get questioned or that people lose faith in the system. You don't seem to like that. In that case you should have been more vocal when Marc Elias was out suing states to get rule changes.
Of course the conditional (IF ... THEN) is true. But your "only point" is an implication that the election rules were changed to benefit one candidate/party.
So where is your evidence of this? Note, again, you ignore my evidence-based direct counter to your implication. I will repeat what I wrote:
Where is your evidence that the election rule changes benefited one candidate/party? Given the Ds lost seats in the House and failed (on election night) to secure a Senate majority with so many R seats up for grabs in 2020, how did these rule changes benefit the D party? Your only point based on the results would have to be that the rule changes helped only Biden. But you ignore that both Biden and Trump received a historic ( " Trump on track to receive most popular votes of any presidential loser in US history " ) number of votes.
You are not objectively following the evidence to where it leads. Seems you are cherry-picking the evidence to declare what you wish were true.
Dulay had the same problem. She couldn't distinguish between changing rules to benefit a certain party and actually accomplishing the plan. They can be successful or they may fail, but there is no question that Marc Elias got rules changed and I would add without the consent of state legislatures. I had hoped you would understand the distinction.
Where is your evidence that the election rule changes benefited one candidate/party?
Did the rule changes help Biden. Don't know. It really is a matter of opinion, but those who think it did can't be criticized - because the rules were changed!!!!
Given the Ds lost seats in the House and failed (on election night) to secure a Senate majority with so many R seats up for grabs in 2020, how did these rule changes benefit the D party?
It clearly didn't benefit democrats running for congress, but AGAIN it wasn't for lack of trying!
Your only point based on the results would have to be that the rule changes helped only Biden.
My point is that was the goal of the rule changes.
But you ignore that both Biden and Trump received a historic ( " Trump on track to receive most popular votes of any presidential loser in US history " ) number of votes.
No, I didn't. I clearly stated that experts and Historians will be looking at the 2020 election for years to come.
You are not objectively following the evidence to where it leads. Seems you are cherry-picking the evidence to declare what you wish were true.
You keep claiming that I said something I haven't. The only point I made and I did make, long ago, was that once the rules were changed people were entitled to question the results. And now I would like to add another point - your obsession with denying anyone a question or concern over how that election was conducted. I hate to quote Shakespeare again, but ‘ The lady doth protest too much, methinks. ’
You claim that the rule changes were made to benefit the party yet fail to evidence that this occurred. One can make such a claim about anything. I could claim that Trump was planning to become the first USA Emperor but did not accomplish his plan. Such an exercise is meaningless and futile.
You further try to put forth a notion that both Dulay and I cannot understand a distinction between a plan and the successful execution of same. You are simply deflecting from attention on your failed argument.
Here again, you present this as if anyone is arguing that the rules were not changed. Yet I explicitly listed the documented changes @9.2.10 and have stated explicitly that the rules were changed. There is no way on the planet that you cannot know that I assert that the rules changed. You arguing that the rules were changed!! is a strawman argument. This, by the way, is the kind of dishonesty that causes me to continue to challenge what you write.
Again, as I noted upfront, political parties always seek to gain benefit to themselves. You have no evidence so your weak argument is nothing more than the D party tried to improve its position through rule changes. Probably true. It is also probably true that the R party tried to improve its position through rule changes. Note that these rule changes appeared in both Red and Blue states. So your argument really is nothing at all. It is nonsense.
And, importantly, you have no evidence that this made any difference. So, as noted, you continue to seed articles and write complaining comments about something that apparently made no difference anyway.
And, as noted, if this is your only point then it is entirely anemic. Yeah, Vic, the rules were changed and thus people are entitled to question the results. And if those people have no evidence to support a claim of foul play, maybe they should just give it a rest.
I've had no problem other than to get YOU to admit the content of your own comments Vic.
YOU are the one that insisted that the changes 'favored Democrats'.
Your failed attempt at trying to pretend that when you said that it 'favored Democrats' you didn't actually mean that Democrats actually GAINED anything from that 'favor' is ridiculous on it's face.
You're merely supplementing your MO of posting unfounded proclamations with ridiculous pretense. It just gets sadder and sadder.