Donald finally admits he lost 2020 election

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

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?

No. I think that it is morally wrong to attempt to defeat the will of the system which was put in place to allow the public to be represented by chosen leaders through trickery, even if it's legal. What he attempted to do, even if it is lawful, is terrible.

But my belief that it is terrible doesn't make it unlawful

[CrakHoBarbie]

8 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

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?

I asked you for something specific:

 

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.

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

But my belief that it is terrible doesn't make it unlawful

Are you a Trump supporter?

[impartialobserver]

Just now, CrakHoBarbie said:

I asked you for something specific:

 

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.

I need clarification... can you answer one simple question? 

[CrakHoBarbie]

Just now, impartialobserver said:

I need clarification... can you answer one simple question? 

I'm not going to ask again.

[impartialobserver]

Just now, CrakHoBarbie said:

I'm not going to ask again.

then we are done.. because I think you are misunderstanding me. 

[Rebound]

42 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?

During the recounts, that’s exactly what they do.  I thought you were complaining that they don’t have the lists of the voters and who they voted for.  

[impartialobserver]

Just now, Rebound said:

During the recounts, that’s exactly what they do.  I thought you were complaining that they don’t have the lists of the voters and who they voted for.  

The trump campaign or whoever the defendant is does not get access to every single ballot. Only the plaintiff does. I have no problem with this. am just explaining this to someone 

[Nationalist]

1 hour 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.

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. 

Barb...do you really think Trump or any of the people who are gonna put him back in the Whitehouse, care what you think? They don't.

Had Brandon succeeded at something...had Kamala succeeded at something...they Democrats would have a chance. But they didn't. What the did was...frankly it was ridiculous. 

Today Hunter pleaded guilty to all counts of tax fraud and other assorted charges. Apparently in order to avoid the sh1t show prosecution can lay on him, and I'd bet to protect Brandon.

It just gets worse and worse for the Democrats. There's a lesson in this for Libbies.

Edited September 5 by Nationalist

[CrakHoBarbie]

45 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

 I have no problem with this. am just explaining this to someone 

So those conducting the recounts and forensic audits didn't have access to this data?

[impartialobserver]

13 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

So those conducting the recounts and forensic audits didn't have access to this data?

for the umpteenth time.. the defendants (sorry, had it mixed up)  therefore those doing the recounts did have access to the ballots. It is not them who is bringing the cases forth.. is it? Trump is  the plaintiff therefore has certain legal obstacles in front of him before he can see every ballot.. the data. He has the burden of proof upon him. 

Edited September 6 by impartialobserver

[CrakHoBarbie]

24 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

 therefore those doing the recounts did have access to the ballots. 

Finally.

Thus, as i said earlier,

even though we've gone through multiple recounts and forensic audits, donalds still never been able to produce any evidence of voter fraud (large enough to of made a difference) viable enough to be substantiated in a court of law. 

Donalds also now claimed that he "had every right" to Interfere in the federal election, (assuming that he believed he had that right because the election was stolen from him), there may be legal ramifications now that he's admitted he "lost" the election.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/trump-basically-admits-to-interfering-in-2020-election-wont-hesitate-to-do-it-again

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

 

Are you a Trump supporter?

I'm a Canadian so I'm not really in a position to support either of them. I think Trump would make a better president than Harris. I'd like to see Trump win but it's more because of the sheer entertainment value he would bring rather than any particular political agenda. I have certainly been critical of him here but I've also made it clear that if I was American and I had to make a choice Trump would be the person I would vote for.

 

I do find the Democrat and their supporter weaponization of the courts to suppress a political opponent to be particularly odious. God knows Republicans say and do some highly questionable things and Trump certainly has but the court thing is just absolutely a horrible precedent. That door is open now. 

 

But the very fact that you would ask indicates that you are going to judge my arguments based on their merits or on the logic or reason or facts but whether or not I'm a trump supporter. Which kind of sends the message that you're all about the bias and hatred and not about the reality.

Edited September 6 by CdnFox

[CdnFox]

39 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

 

Donalds also now claimed that he "had every right" to Interfere in the federal election, (assuming that he believed he had that right because the election was stolen from him), there may be legal ramifications now that he's admitted he "lost" the election.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/trump-basically-admits-to-interfering-in-2020-election-wont-hesitate-to-do-it-again

No, he did not. What  he said was "

Who ever heard you get indicted for interfering with a presidential election, where you have every right to do it

And what that very clearly means is 'why would someone be indicted for 'interference' when they legally could do what they did .  Because if they were allowed to do what they did it's not interference. 

Which is true.  And it is also true that someone SHOULDN'T be charged with interference if what they did was legal. 

This goes on the pile of a long list of things that the democrats and their supportive media outlets have falsified.  Like the "blood in the streets" comment and the "i'll be a dictator" comment etc etc. It's become a joke. There's memes about it. 

He did not say he interfered in the election. He said what he did was legal and he shoudn't be charged with interference. 

Here's a clue for you - if article starts off with "he BASICALLY said"... there's a pretty damn good chance they're about to lie to you  

 

[CrakHoBarbie]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

 I think Trump would make a better president than Harris. 

So you know that Donald attempted to circumvent the rightful electors, thus disenfranchising millions of voters and reinstalling himself in power through fraudulent means....

And you still prefer him back in power?

There's no way to sugar coat this.

Your an unethical piece of shit.

Were done.

Edited September 6 by CrakHoBarbie

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

So you know that Donald attempted to circumvent the rightful electors, thus disenfranchising millions of voters and reinstalling himself in power through fraudulent means....

Through legal  trickery. Fraud is something else. He tried to trick his way back into power. 

Quote

And you still prefer him back in power?

Yep. Harris and the dems are THAT bad.   What he did was horrible but what they did was worse.

Quote

 

There's no way to sugar coat this.

Your an unethical piece of shit.

 

LOL there's no way to sugar coat this...  you're a dumb binch who is the kind of scum that makes even someone like trump look better.    You have no reason or logic, you're driven entirely by hatred and bigotry.  As you have always been. 

 

Quote

Were done.

Nope. I'm going to continue to make fun of you, point out how stupid you are, and use you to unmask the dems and the woke for the hate filled monsters they've become.  You really cant' stop me and i really don't need your cooperation to do that    Sucks to be you. 

[Rebound]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Through legal  trickery. Fraud is something else. He tried to trick his way back into power. 

Yep. Harris and the dems are THAT bad.   What he did was horrible but what they did was worse.

LOL there's no way to sugar coat this...  you're a dumb binch who is the kind of scum that makes even someone like trump look better.    You have no reason or logic, you're driven entirely by hatred and bigotry.  As you have always been. 

 

Nope. I'm going to continue to make fun of you, point out how stupid you are, and use you to unmask the dems and the woke for the hate filled monsters they've become.  You really cant' stop me and i really don't need your cooperation to do that    Sucks to be you. 

No, overturning an election is way worse, because it means that democracy no longer exists.  “Heads I win the election, Tails you lose the election” is just dictatorship.  

[Deluge]

16 hours 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

 

There are certain landmines a political candidate has to sidestep - God knows Kameltoe Harris is doing it constantly - and the stolen election is one of them. 

Everyone (including Trump) still knows that the filthy hair sniffer was cheated into the WH, but after a while you have to let it go and that is exactly what Trump has done in this situation. 

You're barking at the wind.  

[CrakHoBarbie]

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

No, overturning an election is way worse, because it means that democracy no longer exists.  “Heads I win the election, Tails you lose the election” is just dictatorship.  

It's a waste of time responding to cdnfox.

The guy has absolutely no moral or ethical fortitude.

He's a obstinate scab.

You do better talking to a piece of dog shit on the curb.

The dog shit has more moral fiber than that scab.

[robosmith]

19 hours 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. 

Probable cause is ALWAYS required to issue search warrants and random affidavits are NOT PC.

19 hours 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. 

You have to prove the evidence exists behind the lock and key through other means.

[robosmith]

19 hours 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 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. 

There are plenty of ways to discover fraud implemented in VOTING SYSTEMS.

How many people tried of vote for someone else as demonstrated by a signature already on the voting record, or someone else coming in later with proof they are the person that someone else cast a vote for.

[robosmith]

18 hours 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?

The officials who perform recounts see that data. As do the observers from BOTH Parties.

They are there to call out the fraud if any exists.

[robosmith]

18 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

Ok, lets clear up one detail.. would you say that Trump in these cases was the plaintiff or defendant? It really matters

He was the plaintiff making allegations of fraud against his candidacy. Recounts provided the vote counts under observation that you claim was hidden.

18 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

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?

Party observers "see the ballots in their raw" during the recounts.

[robosmith]

18 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Barb...do you really think Trump or any of the people who are gonna put him back in the Whitehouse, care what you think? They don't.

And NO ONE cares what you believe even less, Canuck.

18 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Had Brandon succeeded at something...had Kamala succeeded at something...they Democrats would have a chance. But they didn't. What the did was...frankly it was ridiculous. 

A lot of the success is never reported on your FOS LIES.

18 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Today Hunter pleaded guilty to all counts of tax fraud and other assorted charges. Apparently in order to avoid the sh1t show prosecution can lay on him, and I'd bet to protect Brandon.

What's apparent to you is OFTEN prove FALSE.

18 hours ago, Nationalist said:

It just gets worse and worse for the Democrats. There's a lesson in this for Libbies.

The lesson is all you got is BULLSHIT.

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, Deluge said:

There are certain landmines a political candidate has to sidestep - God knows Kameltoe Harris is doing it constantly - and the stolen election is one of them. 

Everyone (including Trump) still knows that the filthy hair sniffer was cheated into the WH, but after a while you have to let it go and that is exactly what Trump has done in this situation. 

You're barking at the wind.  

As USUAL, what you "know" is FALSE. And my evidence free opinion refutes your evidence free opinion.

2 hours ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

It's a waste of time responding to cdnfox.

The guy has absolutely no moral or ethical fortitude.

He's a obstinate scab.

You do better talking to a piece of dog shit on the curb.

The dog shit has more moral fiber than that scab.

Congrats on your observational skills. ^This is why CdnLIAR is on my ignore list. First ever, btw.

[impartialobserver]

16 hours ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

even though we've gone through multiple recounts and forensic audits, donalds still never been able to produce any evidence of voter fraud (large enough to of made a difference) viable enough to be substantiated in a court of law. 

to produce this "evidence", he needs to have full access to every ballot. To get the access that he wants, he needs proof other than unfavorable results.