The road to 2020

[BeaverFever]

13 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Acts of terrorism have already been normalized....a Canadian tried to kill President Trump.

So America has been no different than Somalia this whole time!  Got it 

[bush_cheney2004]

13 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

So America has been no different than Somalia this whole time!  Got it 

 

Canadian terrorists attack at home and abroad, not just in America.

Post election violence gets charged the same as pre-election violence last time I checked.

[BeaverFever]

 

So America has been no different than Somalia this whole time!  Got it 

[BeaverFever]

On another note, does anyone still doubt that Trump will preemptively pardon himself and his cronies before leaving office?

Edited November 9, 2020 by BeaverFever

[Infidel Dog]

When the Republicans take back House in the mid-terms, Biden's the guy who needs to worry about impeachment then jail.

 

Edited November 9, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[sharkman]

By this time tomorrow, the legal process will have started.  On top of the documented dead people voting, machine glitches giving Trump votes to Biden, mail fraud(both by postal staff and citizens), and democrat counting staff abusing scrutineers, I suspect that there is even more evidence that we don’t know about yet.

 What with all of the iPhones in circulation, No doubt countless videos and photos have been gathered and will add to the weight of evidence.

Kudos to Richard Hopkins for coming forth, no doubt there are others just like him all over America.  

[BeaverFever]

7 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

When the Republicans take back House in the mid-terms, Biden's the guy who needs to worry about impeachment then jail.

 

“...and Obama and the Clintons and Pelosi and Sanders and Warren and AOC and Jimmy Carter and all the other Democrats! All of failed our crackpot conspiracy theories from the last 50 years will finally be proven true and everyone will get arrested....uh after the NEXT election!”

[bush_cheney2004]

Expert advice from a 2016 election loser...Democrat Hillary Clinton:

 

Quote

Hillary Clinton to Biden: Don't concede if the election is close

"Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we don't give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is," Clinton said in an excerpt posted Tuesday.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/25/hillary-clinton-joe-biden-election-advice-401641

 

[-TSS-]

I wonder will Trump just go away or will he start acting like some sort of an opposition-leader even though he has no official position in the party. 

The Republican establishment surely wants him gone but he may not bow to that wish. 

[Cannucklehead]

45 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

I wonder will Trump just go away or will he start acting like some sort of an opposition-leader even though he has no official position in the party. 

The Republican establishment surely wants him gone but he may not bow to that wish. 

The next election would be interesting if he runs independent.  I doubt he would, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see.  

[sidewinder]

If he pulls a Ross Perot It will only screw up any Republican's chance of winning!

[Argus]

6 hours ago, Cannucklehead said:

The next election would be interesting if he runs independent.  I doubt he would, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see.  

Why would he run independent? If he wants the nomination in four years there are more than enough Republicans in his cult to give it to him on a platter.

[Shady]

This is definitely making a lot more sense now.  
 

 

[Infidel Dog]

Not for Progs, their pods and other TDSers, but I watched this one below and went, "Wow!

Go Bill."

Can't wait for Part II.

 

Edited November 11, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Shady]

Mitch McConnell is a legend!

 

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Shady said:

Mitch McConnell is a legend!

 

"It wasn't very close" is just another way of saying "there was a lot of fraud", isn't it?

 

[DogOnPorch]

I think the thing for all to remember is that no matter how much the Democrats and media insist...they don't decide the election.

Unless one wants a total breakdown in confidence in the entire system...there has to be investigations...fair ones, not the Democrats & media investigating themselves. 

"We looked...no fraud."

Yeah...not this time. Try harder.

 

[Shady]

44 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

"It wasn't very close" is just another way of saying "there was a lot of fraud", isn't it?

 

No it’s not.  It’s bragging that he beat his opponent badly.

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, Shady said:

No it’s not.  It’s bragging that he beat his opponent badly.

Ah, I just assumed that winning an election meant fraud, and winning it by a lot meant a lot of fraud.  It comes from being on here.  I'm sure it's not a problem in real life.

[Argus]

79% of Americans say Biden won election, just 3% say Trump did.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKBN27Q3ED

[Guest]

I'm curious.  (I apologise if this has come up before and I missed it)

There's talk in various media that Trump's stalling on conceding the election might be a ploy...

"aimed at delaying the certification of the results in tightly contested states.

It has been suggested that the president's supporters could try to appoint their own electors in critical battleground states, who under America's electoral college system are the ones who actually cast the vote for president.

Traditionally they follow the popular vote in their state but it is theoretically possible in most states for them to cast their vote as they wish."

I'm just wondering if there are those on here who, should attempts at proving fraud fail, would agree with such a strategy.

[BeaverFever]

14 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I'm curious.  (I apologise if this has come up before and I missed it)

There's talk in various media that Trump's stalling on conceding the election might be a ploy...

"aimed at delaying the certification of the results in tightly contested states.

It has been suggested that the president's supporters could try to appoint their own electors in critical battleground states, who under America's electoral college system are the ones who actually cast the vote for president.

Traditionally they follow the popular vote in their state but it is theoretically possible in most states for them to cast their vote as they wish."

I'm just wondering if there are those on here who, should attempts at proving fraud fail, would agree with such a strategy.

Here’s whatThe Atlantic has to say about that:

Lawsuits aside, what about the idea that state legislatures in Republican states could simply appoint a Republican slate of electors for Trump, thereby flipping the Electoral College to him? Is this cause for alarm?

To begin with, even talk of doing so would trigger massive unrest and put legislators under unprecedented pressure. A Republican leader in Pennsylvania’s state Senate has said that the legislature has no further role in choosing electors, though there’s been some troubling talk more recently among Republican legislators to open an inquiry into supposed election irregularities in the state.

 

Moreover, legislatures would have no legal basis for going against voters’ will. The Constitution does give state legislatures the right to set the manner for choosing presidential electors, but they have already set the manner: the use of popular election to assign Electoral College votes on a winner-take-all basis in every state but Nebraska and Maine. In theory, state legislatures could try to declare under a part of the Electoral Count Act that voters have “failed” to make a choice for president, entitling the legislature to choose electors. But voters have made a choice, and there is no plausible argument that fraud or irregularities infected that choice. For state legislatures to do this, we are out of the realm of legal arguments and into naked power politics, where the choice of the president would get duked out in Congress.

We can keep going down these rabbit holes, and though surely there are some very dark possibilities, none of them is likely. Republicans know this, and they are perhaps just “humoring” Trump by allowing him to believe that he has a path to victory.
 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/trump-needs-three-consecutive-hail-mary-passes/617063/

[BeaverFever]

11 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

I think the thing for all to remember is that no matter how much the Democrats and media insist...they don't decide the election.

 

The American people do. And they did.  It seems it’s the Republicans who need to be reminded that they don’t decide the election. They’re the ones pursuing this. 

[DogOnPorch]

7 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

The American people do. And they did.  It seems it’s the Republicans who need to be reminded that they don’t decide the election. They’re the ones pursuing this. 

 

I think they'll take your plea for them to shut-up and let the Democrats & media cheat to win this election on advisement. 

Nobody trusts you...now what?

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Here’s whatThe Atlantic has to say about that:

Lawsuits aside, what about the idea that state legislatures in Republican states could simply appoint a Republican slate of electors for Trump, thereby flipping the Electoral College to him? Is this cause for alarm?

To begin with, even talk of doing so would trigger massive unrest and put legislators under unprecedented pressure. A Republican leader in Pennsylvania’s state Senate has said that the legislature has no further role in choosing electors, though there’s been some troubling talk more recently among Republican legislators to open an inquiry into supposed election irregularities in the state.

 

Moreover, legislatures would have no legal basis for going against voters’ will. The Constitution does give state legislatures the right to set the manner for choosing presidential electors, but they have already set the manner: the use of popular election to assign Electoral College votes on a winner-take-all basis in every state but Nebraska and Maine. In theory, state legislatures could try to declare under a part of the Electoral Count Act that voters have “failed” to make a choice for president, entitling the legislature to choose electors. But voters have made a choice, and there is no plausible argument that fraud or irregularities infected that choice. For state legislatures to do this, we are out of the realm of legal arguments and into naked power politics, where the choice of the president would get duked out in Congress.

We can keep going down these rabbit holes, and though surely there are some very dark possibilities, none of them is likely. Republicans know this, and they are perhaps just “humoring” Trump by allowing him to believe that he has a path to victory.
 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/trump-needs-three-consecutive-hail-mary-passes/617063/

Yeah, they could use the fraud excuse as a basis for making a choice that doesn't involve the votes cast on election night.  It's a scary thought, and rabbit hole is a good way to describe it. 

That said, seventy million people voted for a man with no morals, and no decency.  A coward who refused to serve his country and mocks those who did.  A self serving narcissist who could not care less about any one of those seventy million.  We're already some ways down a rabbit hole.