America under President Trump

[Infidel Dog]

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Please explain how this works. You have a Republican President who is, by many accounts, very savvy, a majority of State Governors who are Republican and an even larger majority of State legislators controlled by the Republican Party, including most of those where the Democratic "fraud" allegedly took place. Add to that, all the Republican counties in those blue states. The Supreme Court is controlled by the GOP and many of the Federal Courts. That means President Trump effectively controlled the election machinery for the 2020 election. How could the Democrats pull it off?

A police officer responds to a bank robbery call. She enters the bank and finds a masked man with a gun standing over a bunch of people lying on the floor. The armed man is shouting, "Officer, they were trying to rob the bank." Yah, that works.

I'm not sure if your question is rhetorical or not.

If it is there's no point in my going to the massive bother of laying out how the massive fraud happened in detail. I think you can see by reading BCsapper's post it doesn't matter how much evidence I lay out or how clearly I show what it indicates to some people. Their minds can't be changed. I'll just get snot, smears, lame attempts at what they think might be humor, peppered with out the butt claims from them.

 I will show you some detail on what I believe happened though if you seriously want to discuss it.

I'd start by showing you that in spite of everything you describe the fix didn't just happen out of the blue. The coming election steal was seen by many in the months approaching it. The president warned of it. Media personalities not under control of the fixers saw it.

So, in spite of that, how were the oft spoken of but rarely specified "they" able to fix a presidential election under the noses of their leaders, the populace, the bureaucracy and administration?

Tell me your question isn't just rhetorical and I'll try to explain to you what I believe is the obvious answer based on the evidence.

Edited January 1, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

I'm not sure if your question is rhetorical or not.

If it is there's no point in my going to the massive bother of laying out how the massive fraud happened in detail. I think you can see by reading BCsapper's post it doesn't matter how much evidence I lay out or how clearly I show what it indicates to some people. Their minds can't be changed. I'll just get snot, smears, lame attempts at what they think might be humor, peppered with out the butt claims from them.

 I will show you some detail on what I believe happened though if you seriously want to discuss the details. 

I'd start by showing you that in spite of everything you describe the fix didn't just happen out of the blue. The coming election steal was seen by many in the months approaching it. The president warned of it. Media personalities not under control of the fixers saw it.

So, in spite of that, how were the oft spoken of but rarely specified "they" able to fix a presidential election under the noses of their leaders, the populace and their ineffectual and often traitorous bureaucracy and administration?

Tell me your question isn't just rhetorical and I'll try to explain to you what I believe is the obvious answer based on the evidence.

Your problem is that you  are trying to convince people on here that the fraud is real.  As I have repeatedly stated in the past, and as Queenmandy85 just stated, if there was any evidence of fraud that in any way cast the results of the election into doubt, the White House, the Republican party, and the right leaning courts, packed with Trump appointees, would have been able to show such and have the relevant votes discounted. 

Such nonsense as blaming procedural decisions for not allowing courts to review evidence supposes a breathtaking lack of competence on the part of those trying to change the outcome of the election. 

Look at your headline there.  "Efforts to oust Trump"!  He wasn't ousted.  He was defeated.  He lost.  Biden won.  You have just provided a great example of media bias.

[Infidel Dog]

Believe it or not, you "stating" something doesn't make it a fact. Refusing to look at evidence doesn't stop it from existing. Telling us not to believe our lying eyes or mocking the reasonable doesn't make you the rationale one. It makes you look silly.

 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Believe it or not, you "stating" something doesn't make it a fact. Refusing to look at evidence doesn't stop it from existing. Telling us not to believe our lying eyes or mocking the reasonable doesn't make you the rationale one. It makes you look silly.

 

It's a fact if it's a fact.  The only reason I would state it is, it's a fact.  It was a fact before I stated it.

Whatever it is.

I'm sorry you have come so far down this path that you feel a retreat to sanity is no longer an option for you.  I'm not the one who looks silly. 

[Infidel Dog]

10 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It's a fact if it's a fact. 

You have an opinion that you have a fact.

As what seems to be interminably shown to you your opinion is based on flawed data and therefore is incorrect.

Edited January 1, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

You have an opinion that you have a fact.

As interminably shown to you your is opinion is based of flawed data and therefore incorrect.

Sure, if you like.  Once we get into pantomime, there's not much point in continuing.

Let me know when one of your fraud cases gets through the courts and we can carry on.

[Infidel Dog]

Trust me if a case ever makes it to a court where the evidence is actually considered won't need me to tell you about it.

Even the corporate media you rely on for your indoctrination will have to at least present it. 

 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Trust me if a case ever makes it to a court where the evidence is actually considered won't need me to tell you about it.

Even the corporate media you rely on for your indoctrination will have to at least present it. 

 

I'll look forward to it.  I'll get some chips and dip in.

[Infidel Dog]

Yes, and afterwards you'll give us your trained responses based on personal disparagement, out the butt claims and calls to ignore what the eyes and ears will see and hear.

Then you'll tell us how clever you are for producing these, what you'll call, facts.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Yes, and afterwards you'll give us your trained responses based on personal disparagement, out the butt claims and calls to ignore what the eyes and ears will see and hear.

Then you'll tell us how clever you are for producing these, what you'll call, facts.

Do you mean to tell me that they won't overturn the election even then, once they do get their views into court?

Must be some kind of conspiracy...

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

I'm not sure if your question is rhetorical or not.

 

I won't put you to all that trouble and abuse. My point was the GOP controlled most of the levers of the election. The Democrats did not. Therefore, if the election had been rigged, President Trump would have been the beneficiary. He lost because the GOP did not abuse their advantage.

If the MSM had sensed any wiff of election rigging by anyone, they would have been on it like starving wolverines. The journalists may not have liked President Trump but he was their bread and butter. Do you actually think Bob Woodward or David Brooks or any prominent journalist would allow his political bias to get in the way of the greatest story since Watergate. It is the kind of story that careers are made of. This old pillock named Soros doesn't have the kind of money that could silence that cash cow. The Red Chinese would love to see it come out. It would support their phoney claim that the Yankee imperialistic warmongers from Wall Street  are corrupt and the US is dysfunctional. It would be Xi's wet dream.

[Cannucklehead]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/world/with-trump-a-no-show-mar-a-lago-guests-left-to-party-maskless-with-rudy-giuliani-and-vanilla-ice-1.5250767

 

Wow I didn't know he was still around. 

Ice ice baby!  ?

[Infidel Dog]

  

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If the MSM had sensed any wiff of election rigging by anyone, they would have been on it like starving wolverines. The journalists may not have liked President Trump but he was their bread and butter. Do you actually think Bob Woodward or David Brooks or any prominent journalist would allow his political bias to get in the way of the greatest story since Watergate. It is the kind of story that careers are made of.

 

Are you saying journalists like Woodward would have been on stories like how mail-out voting, ballot harvesting and voting machines could be used to fix an election if they knew about it?

Why wouldn't they know about it? It wasn't a secret. The  President was loudly and repetitively warning of fraud from universally mailing out ballots since about a year before the election. Allowing ballot harvesting is like opening the liquor store doors and trusting all who enter to just leave payment in a box by the door. You don't think Woodward knows that? The possibility of fraud from voting machines has been discussed since Jimmy Carter. If you really want to get into it the guy below shows you how he knows there was fraud with "unsafeguarded" voting machines.

And I did see the media research that lecture - not so much the voting machine fraud as what they didn't like about the guy who was explaining it to the Senators. Apparently he invented some machine they want you to laugh at, or something.

But if you really want to get into the media's coverage of the fix before and after I think I can show you how they were almost in on the deception from when Donald and Melania first came down the escalator to the present day when all they seem to have to say is "Nothing to see here. Move along." So no, it doesn't surprise that they don't want to investigate the mountain of evidence available now. They're behaving exactly as I would expect them to behave being what they are. 

Here's one for you. If the great Bob Woodward was really interested in finding another Watergate that might damn Democrats where was he during the Russian collusion delusion? Why isn't he all over the Hunter Biden laptop story?

Compared to those two scandals Watergate was a kid pocketing nickels from the church collection plate.

Edited January 1, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[Queenmandy85]

I have confidence in the veracity of news outlets such as PBS Newshour, the NYT, and The Washington Post. Before they report something, they do their best to verify the accuracy of the story. That is not to say they don't occasionally slip up but they depend on their reputation to survive. If they did not report on a story it is because there was no verifiable evidence to support it. Experienced journalists do not ignore a good story because it conflicts with some political bias. The kind of tainted reporters who do, go and work for tabloids like the National Inquirer, MSNBC or CNN.  The real journalists would be on any actual, verifiable evidence of vote rigging.

 President Trump opened himself up to critical scrutiny because of his adolescent behaviour, his aversion to the truth, and his refusal to take advice from anyone who knew what they were doing. It was four years of amateur hour at the WH.

The hypothesis that the election was rigged is based on the idea of a conspiracy. Conspiracies always fail because too many people are involved. Most people need to talk. That is the basis of police work and journalism.

If the Democrats stole this election, you will be reading about it in the Washington post by the end of 2021. There will be a paper trail ("follow the money"), verifiable leaks, and underlings who complain they were not compensated enough. None of that has turned up yet.  I am really looking forward to Ms. Powell's response to the makers of the Dominion machines legal action. 

 

Edited January 2, 2021 by Queenmandy85
Long winded.

[Argus]

On 1/1/2021 at 2:56 PM, Infidel Dog said:

You have an opinion that you have a fact.

As what seems to be interminably shown to you your opinion is based on flawed data and therefore is incorrect.

People who believe Trump lost properly include the attorney general, the head of the FBI, Mitch McConnell, the supreme court, fifty other judges, and all fifty governors, including the Republicans.

People who believe there was fraud include Trump and his family. And his family probably doesn't believe it either.

[Argus]

On 1/1/2021 at 3:12 PM, Infidel Dog said:

Trust me if a case ever makes it to a court where the evidence is actually considered won't need me to tell you about it.

"This court allowed the plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits. In his reply brief, plaintiff 'asks that the Rule of Law be followed.' It has been."

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2020/12/12/trump-wisconsin-lawsuit-dismissed-federal-judge/3894689001/

[Argus]

Now we have a better idea why Trump vetoed the National Defense Act. There was a rider attached which would make corporate fraud and money laundering harder.

Congress just passed the most important anti-corruption reform in decades, but hardly anyone knows about it

The U.S. is embracing the most sweeping anti-corruption reforms the country has seen in decades—and will do so with remarkably strong bipartisan support and little fanfare.

With veto-proof majorities, Congress recently passed the National Defense Authorization Act, an annual bill generally meant to shore up U.S. defense spending. This year’s iteration folded in a piece of legislation known as the Corporate Transparency Act, which targets something specific: anonymous shell companies, tools that have allowed criminal networks, human rights abusers, and tax evaders around the world to flourish while hiding their financial tracks.

https://fortune.com/2020/12/26/ndaa-2021-shell-companies-corporate-transparency-act/

[SpankyMcFarland]

No doubt there are Trumpsters out there who will defend even this behaviour:

Quote

President Trump demanded that Georgia’s Republican secretary of state “find” him enough votes to overturn the presidential election, and vaguely threatened him with “a criminal offense,” during an hourlong telephone conversation with him on Saturday, according to audio excerpts from the conversation.

Mr. Trump, who has spent almost nine weeks making false conspiracy claims about his loss to President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., told Brad Raffensperger, the state’s top elections official, that Mr. Raffensperger should recalculate the vote count so Mr. Trump would win the state’s 16 electoral votes.

“I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have,” Mr. Trump said on the call, a recording of which was obtained by The Washington Post, which published excerpts from the audio on its website Sunday. “Because we won the state.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/us/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-georgia.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

 

 

 

 

 

[Argus]

Pennsylvania's Republican senator Pat Toomey

"A fundamental, defining feature of a democratic republic is the right of the people to elect their own leaders. The effort of Senators Hawley, Cruz and others to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in swing states like Pennsylvania directly undermines this right.

"The senators justify their intent by observing that there have been many allegations of fraud. But allegations of fraud by a losing campaign cannot justify overturning an election. They fail to acknowledge that these allegations have been adjudicated in courtrooms across America and were found to be unsupported by evidence. President Trump's own Attorney General, Bill Barr stated 'we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.'

"I acknowledge that this past election, like all elections, had irregularities. But the evidence is overwhelming that Joe Biden won this election. His narrow victory in Pennsylvania is easily explained by the decline in suburban support for President Trump and the president's slightly smaller victory margins in most rural counties.

"I voted for President Trump and endorsed him for re-election. But, on Wednesday, I intend to vigorously defend our form of government by opposing this effort to disenfranchise millions of voters in my state and others."

[Argus]

Alaska Republican senator Lisa Murkowski

"I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United State and that is what I will do January 6 - just as I strive to do every day as I serve the people of Alaska. I will vote to affirm the 2020 presidential election. The courts and state legislatures have all honored their duty to hear legal allegations and have found nothing to warrant overturning the results. I urge my colleagues from both parties to recognize this and to join me in maintaining confidence in the Electoral College and our elections so that we ensure we have the continued trust of the American people."

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Pennsylvania's Republican senator Pat Toomey

 

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Alaska Republican senator Lisa Murkowski

I imagine any decent, rational, public servant would be justifiably concerned with what the effects on their political system might be if those cowardly, self serving colleagues of theirs who want to follow a corrupt narcissist off a cliff don't come to their senses before the more impressionable of their constituents decide there actually is a case to answer, and, by God, they are the ones who can answer it!

Edited January 3, 2021 by bcsapper

[Guest]

Sanity from some other political officials too.

All 10 living former US defense secretaries declared that the US presidential election is over in a forceful public letter published in The Washington Post on Sunday as President Donald Trump continues to deny his election loss to Joe Biden.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-election-defense-secretaries-public-letter/index.html

 

I suppose they had to include the word "living", so the Trump supporters won't claim they got the views of dead US defense secretaries as well.

[Argus]

Former Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Sunday blasted Congressional Republicans’ efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

“Efforts to reject the votes of the Electoral College and sow doubt about Joe Biden’s victory strike at the foundation of our republic. It is difficult to conceive of a more anti-democratic and anti-conservative act than a federal intervention to overturn the results of state-certified elections and disenfranchise millions of Americans,” Ryan said in a statement.

“The Trump campaign had ample opportunity to challenge election results, and those efforts failed from lack of evidence,” the statement continues. “The legal process was exhausted, and the results were decisively confirmed. The Department of Justice, too, found no basis for overturning the result. If states wish to reform their processes for future elections, that is their prerogative. But Joe Biden’s victory is entirely legitimate.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/532443-ex-gop-speaker-ryan-denounces-effort-to-challenge-electoral-college-results

”

[Michael Hardner]

24 minutes ago, Argus said:

Former Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Sunday blasted Congressional Republicans’ efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

“Efforts to reject the votes of the Electoral College and sow doubt about Joe Biden’s victory strike at the foundation of our republic. It is difficult to conceive of a more anti-democratic and anti-conservative act than a federal intervention to overturn the results of state-certified elections and disenfranchise millions of Americans,” Ryan said in a statement.

“The Trump campaign had ample opportunity to challenge election results, and those efforts failed from lack of evidence,” the statement continues. “The legal process was exhausted, and the results were decisively confirmed. The Department of Justice, too, found no basis for overturning the result. If states wish to reform their processes for future elections, that is their prerogative. But Joe Biden’s victory is entirely legitimate.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/532443-ex-gop-speaker-ryan-denounces-effort-to-challenge-electoral-college-results

I remember him - he cared about the deficit right ?

Look - the time has come for the Republicans to blast this thing.  Otherwise they will have the mad king blackmailing them from Mar-a-lago for years threatening to turn his supporters against them like they're doing to McConnell, Thune, and the Governor of Georgia.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I remember him - he cared about the deficit right ?

Look - the time has come for the Republicans to blast this thing.  Otherwise they will have the mad king blackmailing them from Mar-a-lago for years threatening to turn his supporters against them like they're doing to McConnell, Thune, and the Governor of Georgia.

With any luck, he'll have to blackmail them from a cell. 

That doesn't mean there won't be some Republicans yellow enough to still do his bidding, (I'm looking at you, Lindsey Graham) but it should be fewer.

Edited January 4, 2021 by bcsapper