2020 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence

[Garmel]

"I love it, especially if it's later in the summer. Let's schedule a meeting at Trump Tower." There's some collusion for you.

If it was illegal or collusion why weren't they punished?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Yes, they are informal hearings but the experts are real and have put out pretty damn good info. You can call them PR stunts but they are facts that are difficult to argue with. Like I said if 99.4% of a voter dump going to Biden is real in your world then more power to you. We've danced this dance before when I warned you of the malfeasance of the FBI but you kept trying to follow the MSM narrative. Sorry, but you're dead wrong here. If it wasn't for the time restraint Trump and his team would win this easily. Time is not on Trump's time.

That's the thing. When put in a forum to be scrutinize these experts, or experts like them, the claims haven't survived even the smallest audit. It all sounds like "pretty damn good info...that are difficult to argue with" when not in a forum to have to examine the method of their calculations. Instead, we are stricken with ambiguous words like "dump" and impressive statistics like "99.4%" without ever having to say here is my calculation to backup that claim. The affidavits that were submitted, like in GA by Lin Wood, were shredded with calculation errors. Remember the claim that more voters voted in MI than registered yet it took a few moments to see that someone made an elementary error of confusing MI for MN and somehow mixed their datasets.

I'm not an election expert and have repeatedly shown the claims of "more voters than registered voters" to be absurdly false with publicly available data in WI, PA and MI.

Just because an uniformed and possibly biased judge throws something out doesn't make it reality.

Um...that's the best chance at "reality" we have rather than these PR stunts which are unscrutinized. Your desire to create an alternate reality is only surpassed by Sindney Powell's ******** #ReleaseTheKraken effort.

 

[OUBubba]

That's the thing. When put in a forum to be scrutinize these experts, or experts like them, the claims haven't survived even the smallest audit. It all sounds like "pretty damn good info...that are difficult to argue with" when not in a forum to have to examine the method of their calculations. Instead, we are stricken with ambiguous words like "dump" and impressive statistics like "99.4%" without ever having to say here is my calculation to backup that claim. The affidavits that were submitted, like in GA by Lin Wood, were shredded with calculation errors. Remember the claim that more voters voted in MI than registered yet it took a few moments to see that someone made an elementary error of confusing MI for MN and somehow mixed their datasets.

I'm not an election expert and have repeatedly shown the claims of "more voters than registered voters" to be absurdly false with publicly available data in WI, PA and MI.



Um...that's the best chance at "reality" we have rather than these PR stunts which are unscrutinized. You're desire to create an alternate reality is only surpassed by Sindney Powell's ******** #ReleaseTheKraken effort.

The only thing that would have topped Four Seasons Lawn Care would have been Sidney Powell releasing said Kraken in that locale next door to the dildo store. 'Murca!

 

[Seattle Husker]

If it wasn't for the time restraint Trump and his team would win this easily.

I missed this the first time reading. Jokingly, are you an Aggie? "We didn't lose we just ran out of time" is a common critique of them by Horn fans, right?

 

[Garmel]

That's the thing. When put in a forum to be scrutinize these experts, or experts like them, the claims haven't survived even the smallest audit. It all sounds like "pretty damn good info...that are difficult to argue with" when not in a forum to have to examine the method of their calculations. Instead, we are stricken with ambiguous words like "dump" and impressive statistics like "99.4%" without ever having to say here is my calculation to backup that claim. The affidavits that were submitted, like in GA by Lin Wood, were shredded with calculation errors. Remember the claim that more voters voted in MI than registered yet it took a few moments to see that someone made an elementary error of confusing MI for MN and somehow mixed their datasets.

I'm not an election expert and have repeatedly shown the claims of "more voters than registered voters" to be absurdly false with publicly available data in WI, PA and MI.



Um...that's the best chance at "reality" we have rather than these PR stunts which are unscrutinized. You're desire to create an alternate reality is only surpassed by Sindney Powell's ******** #ReleaseTheKraken effort.

Create an alternate reality? You've been wrong on every major topic since Ive been here. (5 years). Seriously, if I was you I would have shut up a long time or got better sources. You'll be wrong here once again. Keep denying the facts, bud.

 

[Garmel]

I missed this the first time reading. Jokingly, are you an Aggie? "We didn't lose we just ran out of time" is a common critique of them by Horn fans, right?

LOL! You have zero critical thinking skills. There's a lot to do in two weeks time, specifically if he goes to the Supreme Court. Court takes time. I'm not calling you an idiot but you sure as hell are acting like one.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Create an alternate reality? You've been wrong on every major topic since Ive been here. (5 years). Seriously, if I was you I would have shut up a long time or got better sources. You'll be wrong here once again.

 

[Garmel]

How is its slander? It's fact, bud. When you're wrong again will you disappear for a long time again? I hope so.

 

[Seattle Husker]

How is its slander? It's fact, bud. When you're wrong again will you disappear for a long time again? I hope so.

Trolling you is child's play. Seriously though, are you actually an Aggie?

On a serious note, Eric Trump's quote is made up and appears to have appeared on the internet in 2008. It's representative of most of your arguments but none moreso than your defense of the election fraud claims.

 

[Garmel]

Ignore all the experts but follow what the MSM tells me to think.

 

[Garmel]

Trolling you is child's play. Seriously though, are you actually an Aggie?

Serious question. Will you disappear when you make a fool of yourself again? Just asking.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Serious question. Will you disappear when you make a fool of yourself again? Just asking.

Nah, depantsing your arguments are too much fun.

In reality, the moment work picks back up again I'll move on.

 

[Garmel]

Nah, depantsing your arguments are too much fun.

Dude, you haven't been right about anything, FBI, IRS, Covington Kids, etc.. In order to depants someone you have to be right first.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Trump's Disgraceful Endgame from the National Review editors.

There are legitimate issues to consider after the 2020 vote about the security of mail-in ballots and the process of counting votes (some jurisdictions, bizarrely, take weeks to complete their initial count), but make no mistake: The chief driver of the post-election contention of the past several weeks is the petulant refusal of one man to accept the verdict of the American people. The Trump team (and much of the GOP) is working backwards, desperately trying to find something, anything to support the president’s aggrieved feelings, rather than objectively considering the evidence and reacting as warranted.

Almost nothing that the Trump team has alleged has withstood the slightest scrutiny. In particular, it’s hard to find much that is remotely true in the president’s Twitter feed these days. It is full of already-debunked claims and crackpot conspiracy theories about Dominion voting systems. Over the weekend, he repeated the charge that 1.8 million mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania were mailed out, yet 2.6 million were ultimately tallied. In a rather elementary error, this compares the number of mail-ballots requested in the primary to the number of ballots counted in the general. A straight apples-to-apples comparison finds that 1.8 million mail-in ballots were requested in the primary and 1.5 million returned, while 3.1 million ballots were requested in the general and 2.6 million returned.

Flawed and dishonest assertions like this pollute the public discourse and mislead good people who make the mistake of believing things said by the president of the United States.

Good people like @Garmel.

 

[Garmel]

That's the thing. When put in a forum to be scrutinize these experts, or experts like them, the claims haven't survived even the smallest audit. It all sounds like "pretty damn good info...that are difficult to argue with" when not in a forum to have to examine the method of their calculations. Instead, we are stricken with ambiguous words like "dump" and impressive statistics like "99.4%" without ever having to say here is my calculation to backup that claim. The affidavits that were submitted, like in GA by Lin Wood, were shredded with calculation errors. Remember the claim that more voters voted in MI than registered yet it took a few moments to see that someone made an elementary error of confusing MI for MN and somehow mixed their datasets.

I'm not an election expert and have repeatedly shown the claims of "more voters than registered voters" to be absurdly false with publicly available data in WI, PA and MI.



Um...that's the best chance at "reality" we have rather than these PR stunts which are unscrutinized. Your desire to create an alternate reality is only surpassed by Sindney Powell's ******** #ReleaseTheKraken effort.

Yes, a few things were messed up. However, the dumps are at insane levels for Biden and that is fact. But continually ignore common sense and experts.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Yes, a few things were messed up. However, the dumps are at insane levels for Biden and that is fact. But continually ignore common sense and experts.

Common sense...like court cases?

 

[Garmel]

Back to you regularly scheduled programming.

Trump's Disgraceful Endgame from the National Review editors.






Good people like @Garmel.

Cool. I have to believe National Review and ignore my lying eyes. Continue to argue against common sense and national experts.

 

[Garmel]

Common sense...like court cases?

How many did Bush win before he took Florida?

 

[Garmel]

These are the same arguments that Husker and I had during our talks about the FBI. He still can't figure out this is all deja vu.

 

[Seattle Husker]

While AZ Republicans held a faux Election Integrity hearing in a local hotel with Guiliani and crew, the AZ election was certified by R Governor Ducy, R Attorney General Brnovic and D SOS Hobbs.

 

[OUBubba]

Common sense...like court cases?

I love how they allege all kinds of fraudulent crap on camera but in court UNDER MF OATH they say there was no fraud.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I love how they allege all kinds of fraudulent crap on camera but in court UNDER MF OATH they say there was no fraud.

It's a plea for people like @Garmel to open up their pocket book and give Trump more money. Fortunately, @Garmel is no fool so the colloquialism "A fool and their money are soon parted" doesn't apply to him.

 

[Garmel]

Poor uninformed MSM bots.

 

[Horns11]

How many did Bush win before he took Florida?

I wish someone who keeps repeating this would go through Bush v. Gore and point out what precedent Trump could possibly use from it. Equal protection? There are no current counts in dispute. Will the conservative justices just invent some kind of "reasonable remedy" like Breyer/Souter? And what would that remedy entail? And what would the "safe harbor" deadline be for that remedy?

 

[Seattle Husker]

I wish someone who keeps repeating this would go through Bush v. Gore and point out what precedent Trump could possibly use from it. Equal protection? There are no current counts in dispute. Will the conservative justices just invent some kind of "reasonable remedy" like Breyer/Souter? And what would that remedy entail? And what would the "safe harbor" deadline be for that remedy?

You're asking for too much depth. Just accept their claim of victory or deja vu and move on.

 

[Garmel]

I wish someone who keeps repeating this would go through Bush v. Gore and point out what precedent Trump could possibly use from it. Equal protection? There are no current counts in dispute. Will the conservative justices just invent some kind of "reasonable remedy" like Breyer/Souter? And what would that remedy entail? And what would the "safe harbor" deadline be for that remedy?

I'm not sure what he will do. Will he go through the courts or use the electors? However, I still can't get my question answered by the people who think what happens in state courts is something important.

Edit- No idea about precedent. He may use something we haven't even seen yet if he goes the court route.

 

[bystander]

I'm not sure what he will do. Will he go through the courts or use the electors? However, I still can't get my question answered by the people who think what happens in state courts is something important.

This is how Liberals think about state rights except when they don't like states rights as blatantly penned by Ruth Bader Ginsberg concerning the Bush v Gore case:

"I might join the Chief Justice were it my commission to interpret Florida law. But disagreement with the Florida court’s interpretation of its own State’s law does not warrant the conclusion that the justices of that court have legislated. There is no cause here to believe that the members of Florida’s high court have done less than “their mortal best to discharge their oath of office,” and no cause to upset their reasoned interpretation of Florida law."

"In deferring to state courts on matters of state law, we appropriately recognize that this Court acts as an “‘outside[r]’ lacking the common exposure to local law which comes from sitting in the jurisdiction.” That recognition has sometimes prompted us to resolve doubts about the meaning of state law by certifying issues to a State’s highest court, even when federal rights are at stake Notwithstanding our authority to decide issues of state law underlying federal claims, we have used the certification devise to afford state high courts an opportunity to inform us on matters of their own State’s law because such restraint “helps build a cooperative judicial federalism.”

This stuff is comedic gold.

Deferring to state judges in Alabama? Mississippi? Texas?

 

[OUBubba]

This is how Liberals think about state rights except when they don't like states rights as blatantly penned by Ruth Bader Ginsberg concerning the Bush v Gore case:

"I might join the Chief Justice were it my commission to interpret Florida law. But disagreement with the Florida court’s interpretation of its own State’s law does not warrant the conclusion that the justices of that court have legislated. There is no cause here to believe that the members of Florida’s high court have done less than “their mortal best to discharge their oath of office,” and no cause to upset their reasoned interpretation of Florida law."

"In deferring to state courts on matters of state law, we appropriately recognize that this Court acts as an “‘outside[r]’ lacking the common exposure to local law which comes from sitting in the jurisdiction.” That recognition has sometimes prompted us to resolve doubts about the meaning of state law by certifying issues to a State’s highest court, even when federal rights are at stake Notwithstanding our authority to decide issues of state law underlying federal claims, we have used the certification devise to afford state high courts an opportunity to inform us on matters of their own State’s law because such restraint “helps build a cooperative judicial federalism.”

This stuff is comedic gold.

Deferring to state judges in Alabama? Mississippi? Texas?

Isn't she saying that the federal judiciary should stay out of Florida's business inasmuch as the business is about Florida's interpretation of their own election laws? I'm not an expert on the Florida case as my give a shitter wasn't working real strong back then two kids under 3 at the time.

 

[bystander]

Isn't she saying that the federal judiciary should stay out of Florida's business inasmuch as the business is about Florida's interpretation of their own election laws? I'm not an expert on the Florida case as my give a shitter wasn't working real strong back then two kids under 3 at the time.

That's funny... I remember those days (young children). They're 24 and 17 now.

Yes, that's how I interpret it, but it seems as if she's saying they can do what they want. They can interpret as they want. That the US Constitution is not relevant. It's beyond me. Who over-rides a political states rights rubber-stamp?

 

[OUBubba]

That's funny... I remember those days (young children). They're 24 and 17 now.

Yes, that's how I interpret it, but it seems as if she's saying they can do what they want. They can interpret as they want. That the US Constitution is not relevant. It's beyond me. Who over-rides a political states rights rubber-stamp?

I have two 23 year old daughters for these 3 weeks. I think her point is that a state has election laws and the Supreme Court of that state ruled on the interpretations of those laws. Therefore, a federal interpretation was not going to be any "more correct" - state's rights and all. I guess it would be more fitting if you found in her writings some anti State's rights text.