The Next President is...

[gearhog]

3 minutes ago, slackline said:

Knock it off. He’s got you playing his game... Pointless.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

LOL. My game?

I'm asking a basic straightforward question that requires a simple answer. Relax. I'm not trying to trick you.

We both agree there is election fraud. What is an example of the fraud you're referring to and what would be evidence of it?

[Pooter]

28 minutes ago, torqued said:

I'll try another way:

What is a specific example of the fraud you acknowledge exists and what would you say evidence of that fraud would look like?

A court case that actually alleges fraud, which is then successfully prosecuted to completion. Like we've had in literally every election in modern history. This isn't complicated. 
 

After that it's just a numbers game. Find me 10,000 of those cases and we can start talking about throwing out the vote in Georgia. Find me a few million more in other states and then we can talk about a total election mulligan. 

[gearhog]

Just now, Pooter said:

A court case that actually alleges fraud, which is then successfully prosecuted to completion. Like we've had in literally every election in modern history. This isn't complicated. 
 

After that it's just a numbers game. Find me 10,000 of those cases and we can start talking about throwing out the vote in Georgia. Find me a few million more in other states and then we can talk about a total election mulligan. 

Right. It shouldn't be complicated. I believe you're saying evidence of fraud is... a court case that alleges fraud.

Okay... Okay. I'm willing to hear you out on that one, but let's back up.

Once more: What is an example of fraud that you believe exists?

 

[Sim]

The "Office of President Elect" (fake office, illegal) needs your help! 🤣

I guess Trump listened to Hillary Clinton. 

Quote

“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 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/hillary-clinton-says-biden-should-not-concede-2020-election-under-n1238156 

[Air_Space]

So where do we go from here? 

If POTUS feels he has a valid claim of voter fraud that'll overturn the election results he should pursue every legal option available to him. The problem is we have yet to see concrete evidence of this and unfortunately the burden of proof is on him/his legal team. If the fight is kept up till inauguration day we end up with 2 options as a nation.

A. Half the nation believes Trump was cheated out of a fair election by the democrats and the democrats have organized well enough to take any Republicans out of office when they need to

B. Trump stays in office and confidence that a peaceful transfer of power can ever occur again goes out the window. No one now believes in the election process 

Either way the real losers are you and I. The American people, because no matter what happens faith in the election system has been damaged and our faith in both political parties has been depleted. At the end of the day I like to think everyone on this forum puts country before any political party which have both failed us in their pursuit for power. At this point I am just disappointed 

 

 

 

[Sua Sponte]

5 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

Sooooo your lack of addressing the question and deflecting says being a Senator didn’t qualify/prep Obama to be a president from a leadership and decision making perspective, copy. 

I answered an asinine question with an asinine, but factually true, answer. Obama met the basic qualifications to be President. Being “qualified/prepped” for leadership and decision making ability is subjective, not objective. Obama is also the guy who ordered the executive of Neptune Spear against Bin Laden, even when Biden told him to wait. 

That’s one of the great parts of America. You can have an actor, peanut farmer, governor, lawyer, and now a con-artist be President. All bring pros and cons to the office. You’ll disagree, but that’s like, your opinion man.

Edited November 21, 2020 by Sua Sponte

[Sua Sponte]

5 hours ago, torqued said:

Right. It shouldn't be complicated. I believe you're saying evidence of fraud is... a court case that alleges fraud.

Okay... Okay. I'm willing to hear you out on that one, but let's back up.

Once more: What is an example of fraud that you believe exists?

 

How many of Trump’s legal filings have been successful in proving fraud?

[SurelySerious]

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

I answered an asinine question with an asinine, but factually true, answer. Obama met the basic qualifications to be President. Being “qualified/prepped” for leadership and decision making ability is subjective, not objective. Obama is also the guy who ordered the executive of Neptune Spear against Bin Laden, even when Biden told him to wait. 

That’s one of the great parts of America. You can have an actor, peanut farmer, governor, lawyer, and now a con-artist be President. All bring pros and cons to the office. You’ll disagree, but that’s like, your opinion man.

You didn’t answer anything. 

[17D_guy]

13 hours ago, Negatory said:

Along those lines, I don’t usually watch Bill Maher, but I did happen to see this clip of him calling out some of the delusions of the current Democratic Party and why they didn’t do as well as they thought they would in the elections. I thought this really hit the nail on the head when it came down to what is wrong with “woke” culture.

 

I'm going to watch this every time it's posted.

[slackline]

The "Office of President Elect" (fake office, illegal) needs your help! 

You're right it is very stupid, but if only there were some normal way to fund what he's trying to do...

Please, enlighten us as to why it's illegal to say that. Maybe not official, certainly not illegal. If you slapped a label on your house saying "Office of the conspiracy pusher in Chief" it wouldn't be official, but it also wouldn't be illegal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

7 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

How many of Trump’s legal filings have been successful in proving fraud?

Slow down, brother. We'll get there, I promise.

I believe you, Pooter, Prozac, and slackline are smart dudes. I'm not going to be able jedi-mindtrick any of you, so I can't quite understand the reluctance to answer if we are all genuinely interested in having an intellectually honest exchange. Maybe I put a little snark in my earlier posts, and I shouldn't have, because I really want to figure out what, if anything, is happening to our democratic process without pissing everyone off. I'm not willing to take it at face value that "Everything is Fine." because I like my way of life and my country, and I don't want it fucked up because I was complacent and implicitly trusted the system when I shouldn't have.

However, if the path of logic dictates that everything is fine, Great! The old quote comes to mind: "It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so." So what if I dispensed with my assumptions and preconceived notions about the reliability of our process, tried to make an accurate assessment of the risks, and then attempted to determine if the proper mitigations were in place? Is that wrong? A bad idea?

I think it's reasonable to begin with asking the simple question:

Does election fraud exist and what would the evidence be?

 

 

 

[slackline]

Hidden Brain podcast episode from Oct 26 is a fascinating listen. Super interesting. Says the bigger problem and divide in the US isn't so much between Rs and Ds, but people who love to talk about politics and those that don't. Point taken, I'm backing out of this world for a while. Gotta stop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guardian]

Torqued it seems that people who don’t want trump just want to censor and say get on with your life and the whole thing wasn’t rigged so stop. Seems like the opposing side says all we want to do is discuss and investigate. There is evidence. Affidavits are evidence. Statements are evidence. And if it comes back in favor of no fraud and Biden won then they will accept it and move on. It’s my personal opinion that History will record Trump as one of the most successful presidents to run the county to a lot of prosperity but even in light of that he was very Divisive, said a lot of egregious and offensive things that made people not look past the words to the actions of the man.

What is true tolerance? Having a different view point but accepting that view point isn’t others view points and life continues. It’s pretty obvious over the last 12-20 years that the right is the side of tolerance, freedom, and equality.

Remember Democrats founded the KKK. Republicans were founded on equality for all men and to give women equal rights and are true to that end today. Obama planted or cultivated the seeds of racial division that we are still feeling the effects of today. The democrats scare lots of minorities into voting for them with scare tactics, victim hood, and free stuff. That’s scary and not the American dream. Now Biden and his transition team have already said they will implement very radical, immoral social policy and force the country to pay. I think paying for everyone’s college is pure theft and is going to do a lot to hurt this country. Thank goodness the Supreme Court leans right. At least we have that.

Guess what true to the last four years, zero republican or right riots. What if on the less than1% chance trump wins? Hell it’s very likely trump lost and that doesn’t stop domestic terrorism from occurring from BLM and Antifa. Scary.

Cant say that is the case with the left or liberals, that they are tolerant. There is zero tolerance for any opinions but their own. And in fact I could accept it if it was liberal thought. But the left as a large percentage has gone progressive which in our society is becoming synonymous with socialist. That’s why the right or people who agree with trump are fighting so hard. We happen to like our land of the free and equal opportunity the way it mostly is. And the right thinks it’s immoral to steal and murder. And that if you make money it should largely stay your money.

I really have a very large difficulty understanding why people think republicans or conservatives are so evil.

And to sum it up torqued, I don’t have a good answer why they can’t simply look at the things we are saying, not assume or try to read between lines that aren’t there, and have civil discourse. I realize they would disagree. But it doesn’t seem like they can answer directly.

[gearhog]

32 minutes ago, slackline said:

I'm backing out of this world for a while. Gotta stop.

Bye, I guess.

[Guardian]

What fact is that. That there are racists on both sides. That democrats 155 years ago are racist and that Harris is incredibly racist? Yeah. I’m sure some racists voted for trump. Just like I’m positive racists voted for Biden. Equal outcome and equity are inherently racist.

Armed protesters aren’t riots caused by riots. And maybe there was one riot caused by the right. There were something like 90 straight days in Portland of multiple riots throughout the city not caused by the right. So one compared to how many?

Don’t worry man. I hold you and SLACK on the same level of incoherence and in ability to rationalize or answer questions. You twist, manipulate and try to justify something other than what is being talked about. At least it doesn’t seem that you are reverting to name calling like others. But just because you don’t want the left to be a party of racists or ones that support systematic racism doesn’t mean they aren’t. They absolutely are.

[Guardian]

Same for you, brother. You literally can't even accept things that you write as facts, as was evidenced by the last couple days.

Good thing no one has any idea what you are talking about. I wasn’t proven wrong. I was proven right. That you couldn’t read and understand the things I said without injecting your assumptions into it and claiming I said things I didn’t. So evidence away if you can.

Please explain how prayer U is wrong in the above videos. With facts and reason. Not just saying some liberal think tank says they are wrong or there is no value or truth to what they say. Please. Humor me. Or explain why the more companionate party is the Democrat Party with respect to the average citizen. I don’t think it’s possible by you or anyone. Facts don’t care about your emotions Negatory.

[Negatory]

7 minutes ago, Guardian said:

What fact is that. That there are racists on both sides. That democrats 155 years ago are racist and that Harris is incredibly racist? Yeah. I’m sure some racists voted for trump. Just like I’m positive racists voted for Biden. Equal outcome and equity are inherently racist.

Armed protesters aren’t riots caused by riots. And maybe there was one riot caused by the right. There were something like 90 straight days in Portland of multiple riots throughout the city not caused by the right. So one compared to how many?

Don’t worry man. I hold you and SLACK on the same level of incoherence and in ability to rationalize or answer questions. You twist, manipulate and try to justify something other than what is being talked about. At least it doesn’t seem that you are reverting to name calling like others. But just because you don’t want the left to be a party of racists or ones that support systematic racism doesn’t mean they aren’t. They absolutely are.

So now I would like to quote my good friend guardian who always says that EXACT WORDING is the only thing that matters. The guy who won't try to understand your message, just pick apart nitnoid arguments. You said there were zero riots. Guess your credibility is shot forever.

[Guardian]

That’s you not focusing on the questions.

I can be wrong. And if I’m proven wrong can and do apologize.

Still not seeing anything from you. Very much shows how you aren’t proving to be worth anyone’s time.

[Negatory]

Your videos focus primarily on the 1800s and a single quote from LBJ. Doesn't seem like a very rigorous argument. It's not important. The point is that neither party outwardly supports racism. Trying to argue that dems are the party of racists with these arguments is grasping at straws.

And I agree that racial politics and identity politics are terrible. I don't support them. Many people who voted D don't. Your arguments are pedantic and churlish and, to that, I say good day. 

Good day, sir. I said good day!

 

 

Anyways, how 'bout them Bears?

[gearhog]

3 minutes ago, Negatory said:

You aren't being a genuine or honest debate partner. Every person has already said election fraud exists, just that there is absolutely no evidence that it is of any magnitude that would be even close to mattering. See here's an example of a terrible citizen voting twice:

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/election/article246971357.html

I recommend we throw him in jail. Or maybe he was just following what a political leader said? Maybe it's his fault?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-vote/trump-encourages-supporters-to-try-to-vote-twice-sparking-uproar-idUSKBN25U0KK

The burden of proof is on you to prove something exists - not the normal system to prove something doesn't exist. That's how things work. You have circumstantial evidence, AT BEST, and you are mad that no one is listening. It's childish and embarrassing. Sorry the judges in every state keep telling you no, your lawsuits don't work.

And you still need to address the easy question that you still haven't: How did republicans keep the senate when mass coordinated voter fraud against your party was conducted? The party of cognitive dissonance has spoken!

Next...

If I'm not being genuine or honest, then I am being disingenuous and dishonest. You're making a claim. According to you, the burden of proof lies with the claimant, yet you haven't quoted any text where I have been disingenuous or dishonest. Maybe I have, I don't know. It certainly wasn't my intent. But if you provide the evidence, I'd very much like to apologize for it, and make corrections.

I'm glad you also agree that fraud exists. But you still haven't answered the question as to what that fraud is and what the evidence would be. Curiously, the article you linked to isn't an example of "fraud." It's an example of an honest man who unintentionally had his vote recorded twice. Please understand, I'm left to assume you either don't know the definition of the word "fraud" or are disingenuously or dishonestly making the claim this man intentionally committed a fraudulent act. Which is it? Forget it, let's let that one go. Do you have any real examples?

Where have I indicated that I'm upset that no one is listening? Again, another specious claim. I don't have circumstantial evidence, I don't have any lawsuits. Why are you using the terms "you" and "your"? If I were mad and childish, wouldn't I be using profane insults, refusing to engage, and quitting the conversation when it became apparent I was losing?

Although you failed, you tried to answer my question so I'd be happy to address yours.

How did they keep the Senate? You'll probably want to look at an election map while reading this. Here: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=senate+races+2020. Use the buttons at the top to switch between Presidential and Senate races. Can you see the states that had senate races? Can you see the states that did not have senate races? The states where voting irregularities were alleged to have occurred did not have Senate races. Does that blow your mind or what?

 

 

 

[Negatory]

Guys, isn’t it the libs’ job to be triggered?

[gearhog]

2 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Guys, isn’t it the libs’ job to be triggered?

Bye, I guess.

[DosXX]

19 hours ago, torqued said:

I believe you're saying evidence of fraud is... a court case that alleges fraud.

Not sure if intentional or not but you forgot to add the most important second part. He would disagree that a court case alone is evidence of fraud.

19 hours ago, Pooter said:

A court case that actually alleges fraud, which is then successfully prosecuted to completion.

The heritage foundation, one of the most reputable conservative think thanks, has a running list of successfully prosecuted fraud cases with sources. Running tally is at roughly 1000 across the country. These are examples of fraud everyone here would agree with, that should be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible. They are isolated instances that don't change the outcome, with no evidence of systemic conspiracy to change the results, though of course we should remain open to that possibility. The Trump team is undermining democratic process by claiming a priori that there is systemic fraud and that he won in a landslide. Take it to the courts, win your case, and then say it was a fraudulent election.

https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

Does this answer your question @torqued? If you want more specifics I can pick out some random ones out from in there.

[Prosuper]

I figure they spent 4 years going Russia,Russia, Russia plus an impeachment , wouldn't it be fair to give them 3 weeks looking for voter fraud. Get used to perpetual war again Gents.

[gearhog]

 

Nevada Secretary of State homepage says the Cumulative Election Turnout was 1,327,394 ballots.

https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showdocument?id=9054

Nevada Secretary of State also says 1,406,006 ballots were cast for President.

https://silverstateelection.nv.gov/USPresidential/#race1

Biden leads by 33,000 votes.

Is Trump raising doubts about the electoral process, or is Nevada?

 

 

Edited November 21, 2020 by torqued