CrakHoBarbie Posted September 5 Report Posted September 5 Donald Trump, who, for the last four years has denied the reality of his 2020 election defeat, told podcaster Lex Fridman that he lost the election "by a whisker". What’s more, the on-air comments came on the heels of nearly identical remarks late last week. At a far-right event in Washington, D.C., the Republican said in reference to Biden, “He beat us by a whisker. It was a terrible thing.” So, let's recap: For the last four years Donald and his moronic sycophants have taken every opportunity to insist the election was stolen. And now, right before the new election he unwittingly concedes the loss. It should be fun to watch how donalds cultists try and talk their way out of this one. https://www.yahoo.com/news/maddow-blog-whisker-trump-acknowledges-173748470.html 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted September 5 Report Posted September 5 21 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said: Donald Trump, who, for the last four years has denied the reality of his 2020 election defeat, told podcaster Lex Fridman that he lost the election "by a whisker". What’s more, the on-air comments came on the heels of nearly identical remarks late last week. At a far-right event in Washington, D.C., the Republican said in reference to Biden, “He beat us by a whisker. It was a terrible thing.” So, let's recap: For the last four years Donald and his moronic sycophants have taken every opportunity to insist the election was stolen. And now, right before the new election he unwittingly concedes the loss. It should be fun to watch how donalds cultists try and talk their way out of this one. https://www.yahoo.com/news/maddow-blog-whisker-trump-acknowledges-173748470.html I don't know that he ever said that biden didn't get more votes, I think his point all the way along was that he had gotten the votes fraudulently. I don't really feel that this is some sort of admission that he has changed his thinking there. I think he can still believe that he should have won but that the election was stolen and at the same time admit that regardless of HOW he got them biden got more votes. I suspect if he was asked he was still safe that had it been a fair count he would have won the election 1 Quote
CrakHoBarbie Posted September 5 Author Report Posted September 5 (edited) 12 minutes ago, CdnFox said: I don't know that he ever said that biden didn't get more votes, I think his point all the way along was that he had gotten the votes fraudulently. I don't really feel that this is some sort of admission that he has changed his thinking there. I think he can still believe that he should have won but that the election was stolen and at the same time admit that regardless of HOW he got them biden got more votes. I suspect if he was asked he was still safe that had it been a fair count he would have won the election Unfortunately for donald, he never presented any evidence of voter fraud viable enough To be substantiated in a court of law. And keep in mind Donald and his sycophants left no stone unturned in their quest to prove the fraud. Multiple recounts in multiple states. Still no fraud found. Forensic audits costing millions of dollars that found no evidence of wrongdoing viable enough to be substantiated in a court of law. Donald lost the election fair and square and only used his claims of fraud in an attempt justify his attempted coup d'état. Donalds a traitor, as are every single one of his halfwitted sycophants. Edited September 5 by CrakHoBarbie 2 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted September 5 Report Posted September 5 6 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said: Unfortunately for donald, he never presented any evidence of voter fraud viable enough To be substantiated in a court of law. And keep in mind Donald and his sycophants left no stone unturned in their quest to prove the fraud. I don't think that will hold him back from believing it's true in any way We're not discussing whether there was fraud or not, we're discussing what his position on it is. Quote Multiple recounts in multiple states. Still no fraud found. well ... lots of fraud found (there is every election) but none that shows that the results would have been different. The problem is with the us system there wouldn't be. And ESPECIALLY that election with the mail in ballots. If someone harvests ballots, what possible evidence would there be? I've said this clearly a number of times here, The us needs to change it's voting laws to eliminate the APPEARANCE of fraud regardless of the reality of it. Polling shows that BOTH sides since 2000 believe the other side 'rigged things' when they lose. Nobody has faith in the current model. Quote Donald lost the election fair and square and only used his claims of fraud in an attempt justify his attempted coup d'état. There was no 'coup'. Interference is arguable. But to be honest i really suspect he does actually believe it was stolen from him. Just like Hillary still to this day says the election was stolen from her despite how many hundreds of millions in investigations and her fake dossier etc etc. Quote Donalds a traitor, as are every single one of his halfwitted sycophants. No, that's just your hatred and Bigotry talking. Quote
DUI_Offender Posted September 5 Report Posted September 5 (edited) 48 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said: Donald Trump, who, for the last four years has denied the reality of his 2020 election defeat, told podcaster Lex Fridman that he lost the election "by a whisker". What’s more, the on-air comments came on the heels of nearly identical remarks late last week. At a far-right event in Washington, D.C., the Republican said in reference to Biden, “He beat us by a whisker. It was a terrible thing.” So, let's recap: For the last four years Donald and his moronic sycophants have taken every opportunity to insist the election was stolen. And now, right before the new election he unwittingly concedes the loss. It should be fun to watch how donalds cultists try and talk their way out of this one. https://www.yahoo.com/news/maddow-blog-whisker-trump-acknowledges-173748470.html Who would have thought it would take middle onset dementia to make Trump finally tell the truth on issues. Edited September 5 by DUI_Offender 1 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted September 5 Report Posted September 5 Just now, DUI_Offender said: Who would have thought it would take middle onset dementia to make Trump finally tell the truth on issues. Actually that's pretty believable. You have middle onset dementia and that makes you think trump finally changed his mind on something. That really is the only logical way you could have come to that conclusion. Well that or hard drugs..... Quote
impartialobserver Posted September 5 Report Posted September 5 I have said it before but the reason that all of the voter fraud cases failed was due to laws that predate all of this. In essence, the laws mostly demand that you have proof of the crime before you can have the voter rolls/data opened up to you. The evidence is the voter rolls.. so of course they all failed. Quote
CrakHoBarbie Posted September 5 Author Report Posted September 5 2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said: I have said it before but the reason that all of the voter fraud cases failed was due to laws that predate all of this. In essence, the laws mostly demand that you have proof of the crime before you can have the voter rolls/data opened up to you. The evidence is the voter rolls.. so of course they all failed. And our Universe is encased in a speck in the eye of a blue eyed giant. 1 Quote
impartialobserver Posted September 5 Report Posted September 5 Just now, CrakHoBarbie said: And our Universe is encased in a speck in the eye of a blue eyed giant. Look I do not believe that widespread voter fraud occurred. However, the reason that the court cases were all thrown out is due to lack of evidence. The evidence can't be legally procured unless you have proof of the offense. This is why id10t Mike Lindell tried so hard to find another way. He knew that the evidence (if it even exists) was behind lock and key. Quote
CrakHoBarbie Posted September 5 Author Report Posted September 5 6 minutes ago, impartialobserver said: Look I do not believe that widespread voter fraud occurred. However, the reason that the court cases were all thrown out is due to lack of evidence. The evidence can't be legally procured unless you have proof of the offense. This is why id10t Mike Lindell tried so hard to find another way. He knew that the evidence (if it even exists) was behind lock and key. So, you claim you don't believe enough fraud happened to sway the election.... But you also believe if said fraud did happen, that evidence has been hidden from all the recounts and forensic audits.... Fascinating.... Quote
DUI_Offender Posted September 5 Report Posted September 5 (edited) 10 minutes ago, impartialobserver said: Look I do not believe that widespread voter fraud occurred. However, the reason that the court cases were all thrown out is due to lack of evidence. The evidence can't be legally procured unless you have proof of the offense. This is why id10t Mike Lindell tried so hard to find another way. He knew that the evidence (if it even exists) was behind lock and key. Trump has cried Wolf too many times, in terms of "election interference." Trump was going on about election interference in the months before he beat Hilary, since he honestly believed he would lose. Then in 2020, he would not shut up about "election interference," and went through the trouble of hiring a conman to oversee the USPS, and make false claims about two electronic balloting companies. I find it amusing that aside from the 2000 US election (where it was decided by a few hundred votes in Florida), that at no time in my life, has a presidential candidate went on about election interference. Edited September 5 by DUI_Offender Quote
impartialobserver Posted September 5 Report Posted September 5 (edited) 5 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said: So, you claim you don't believe enough fraud happened to sway the election.... But you also believe if said fraud did happen, that evidence has been hidden from all the recounts and forensic audits.... Fascinating.... it is not a matter of being hidden or anything nefarious. its a matter of established law that states that to get access to micro level voter data (person by person).. you need to have proof of fraud. The people bringing the cases to court (trump and his campaign) can only prove their case by getting access to the raw data. Do you see how it is confounding? They have the right to believe that these audits are false or done incorrect. it just happens that there exists no legal way for them to perform the audit themselves. Edited September 5 by impartialobserver Quote
CrakHoBarbie Posted September 5 Author Report Posted September 5 25 minutes ago, CdnFox said: There was no 'coup'. Donald hatched and implemented a plan to install fake electors in multiple states. Had he succeeded, not only would he of disenfranchised millions of voters, he'd of also succeeded in reinstalling himself in power. Make no mistake, Donald attempted a coup d'etat. That coup d'état failed. 2 1 Quote
SpankyMcFarland Posted September 5 Report Posted September 5 I don’t recall him ever saying he lost before by any yardstick so that is progress. 1 Quote
CrakHoBarbie Posted September 5 Author Report Posted September 5 6 minutes ago, impartialobserver said: it is not a matter of being hidden or anything nefarious. its a matter of established law that states that to get access to micro level voter data (person by person).. you need to proof of fraud. The people bringing the cases to court (trump and his campaign) can only prove their case by getting access to the raw data. Do you see how it is confounding? What "raw data" are you claiming was not accessed and prove your contention with citations. Quote
CdnFox Posted September 5 Report Posted September 5 23 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said: And our Universe is encased in a speck in the eye of a blue eyed giant. so... still struggling with that drug addiction i see.... Quote
impartialobserver Posted September 5 Report Posted September 5 1 minute ago, CrakHoBarbie said: What "raw data" are you claiming was not accessed and prove your contention with citations. the raw data that Trump's campaign wants access to is the paper forms along with the individual voter forms.. not rolled up totals. There is a good reason that laws are in place barring people from seeing this. For example, lets say that for a state Biden got 891,354 votes.. they want to see every ballot (physical or digital) that shows this. Is that clear? Quote
CdnFox Posted September 5 Report Posted September 5 12 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said: So, you claim you don't believe enough fraud happened to sway the election.... But you also believe if said fraud did happen, that evidence has been hidden from all the recounts and forensic audits.... Fascinating.... That's actually a reasonably rational position. The fact you think that's weird says more about you than him. Quote
CdnFox Posted September 5 Report Posted September 5 9 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said: Donald hatched and implemented a plan to install fake electors in multiple states. That is not a coup, that is fraud. And even then it's only fraud if he didn't think he was technicaly legal. Quote Had he succeeded, not only would he of disenfranchised millions of voters, he'd of also succeeded in reinstalling himself in power. Sure. Still not a coup. IF it turned out biden cheated and didn't really win the election as Trump claimed that ALSO would not be a coup. Quote Make no mistake, Donald attempted a coup d'etat. That's literally not what a coup d'etat would be in the slightest. this is why it gets really hard to take you besides seriously. Why don't you just claim the attempted murder? Or that he attempted to Nuke the gay unborn whales for Jesus and get everyone pissed off No coup kiddo. What is claimed is that he thought that there was some weird legal theory based on his lawyers which claimed a vice president has the constitutional discretion to swap official electors with an alternate slate during the certification process, thus changing the outcome of the electoral college vote and the overall winner of the presidential race. So if pence counted the votes from the 'alternate' (not fake) voters then they would become the defacto voters and he would win because pence would have unwittingly swapped in the alternates officially. In theory. And the blame would have been pence's for not certifying the votes. Which would have been true. Now obviously this was never tested in court and many would say it was bonkers, but then many would say that the decision that the president can't be tried in court and must be impeached was a bit of a shocker as well. So trump thought he was making use of some slight of hand to take advantage of a loophole. Scummy, dishonest, possibly criminal... but not a coup. Hope you got that cleared up Quote
CrakHoBarbie Posted September 5 Author Report Posted September 5 10 minutes ago, impartialobserver said: the raw data that Trump's campaign wants access to is the paper forms along with the individual voter forms.. not rolled up totals. There is a good reason that laws are in place barring people from seeing this. For example, lets say that for a state Biden got 891,354 votes.. they want to see every ballot (physical or digital) that shows this. Is that clear? You made a claim that "raw data" wasn't accessible during the recounts and forensic audits. I'm asking you to support your statements with citations. 12 minutes ago, CdnFox said: That's actually a reasonably rational position. The fact you think that's weird says more about you than him. Ok. Then support your statements with citations. Quote
CrakHoBarbie Posted September 5 Author Report Posted September 5 (edited) 13 minutes ago, CdnFox said: That is not a coup, that is fraud. And even then it's only fraud if he didn't think he was technicaly legal. Sure. Still not a coup. IF it turned out biden cheated and didn't really win the election as Trump claimed that ALSO would not be a coup. That's literally not what a coup d'etat would be in the slightest. this is why it gets really hard to take you besides seriously. Why don't you just claim the attempted murder? Or that he attempted to Nuke the gay unborn whales for Jesus and get everyone pissed off No coup kiddo. What is claimed is that he thought that there was some weird legal theory based on his lawyers which claimed a vice president has the constitutional discretion to swap official electors with an alternate slate during the certification process, thus changing the outcome of the electoral college vote and the overall winner of the presidential race. So if pence counted the votes from the 'alternate' (not fake) voters then they would become the defacto voters and he would win because pence would have unwittingly swapped in the alternates officially. In theory. And the blame would have been pence's for not certifying the votes. Which would have been true. Now obviously this was never tested in court and many would say it was bonkers, but then many would say that the decision that the president can't be tried in court and must be impeached was a bit of a shocker as well. So trump thought he was making use of some slight of hand to take advantage of a loophole. Scummy, dishonest, possibly criminal... but not a coup. Hope you got that cleared up Ok. Let's put aside the legalities for a moment. Do you believe that a president who was voted out of office by "we the people", should be allowed to retain said office if he can get his vice president to accept electors that are not abiding by the tallied votes? Edited September 5 by CrakHoBarbie Quote
impartialobserver Posted September 5 Report Posted September 5 13 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said: You made a claim that "raw data" wasn't accessible during the recounts and forensic audits. I'm asking you to support your statements with citations. Ok, lets clear up one detail.. would you say that Trump in these cases was the plaintiff or defendant? It really matters Quote
CrakHoBarbie Posted September 5 Author Report Posted September 5 Just now, impartialobserver said: Ok, lets clear up one detail.. would you say that Trump in these cases was the plaintiff or defendant? It really matters Again.... You made a claim that "raw data" wasn't accessible during the recounts and forensic audits. I'm asking you to support your statements with citations. Quote
CdnFox Posted September 5 Report Posted September 5 2 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said: Ok. Then support your statements with citations. You are looking for a 'cite' that says your position is not rational? Ok - i would cite your request for a cite about your position not being rational as evidence that you're not being rational about your position. For your position to be rational (ie your claim that he doesn't think that there's fraud but that if there was it would be hard to obtain the evidence, it would require That both of those things could not be true at the same time. Very clearly they could be true at the same time. It can be true that he does not believe that there is fraud, and it can also be true that the evidence would not have been available at the time. If he wants to disagree with the idea that the information couldn't have been obtained then you of course could pursue that but your claim specifically tied it to his lack of belief that fraud had existed. You said essentially you believe that no fraud existed but that the evidence couldn't be obtained. Those two statements are not in conflict Quote
impartialobserver Posted September 5 Report Posted September 5 (edited) 6 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said: Again.... You made a claim that "raw data" wasn't accessible during the recounts and forensic audits. I'm asking you to support your statements with citations. Its state law and you are getting up tripped on one detail. The defendant, Trump, in this case is legally barred from seeing the ballots in their raw. The plaintiffs are not barred. These laws have been in place since the 1960's and far good reason. These laws predate Trump ever running for office. It makes perfect sense why you do not want someone's voting choices along with their name, address, etc. being easily accessed. Would you agree? Edited September 5 by impartialobserver Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.