13
   

Has Donald J. Trump overturned the Election result today?

 
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2020 07:01 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
I and several others hve corrected your dim unerstanding of the US Constitution.

Liar. You are the only person here who has a dim understanding of the Constitution.


farmerman wrote:
Im certainly not worried about your squealing about what you know when its obvious to many of us that you are one dim bulb

The problem with you stupid people is, what is "obvious" to stupid people has nothing to do with reality.


farmerman wrote:
Now go back to the basement and leave the discussion to folks who know of what they speak.

You are the only person here who talks about subjects that he is completely ignorant of.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2020 07:07 pm
@oralloy,
well I can always use some correction. Really smart people take correction because we are always researching along the edges of ignorance, and I love to compare notes.

0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2020 12:12 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
What the hell are you talking about, Brandon? I didn't say anything about a tape recorder.

You said, "She failed to give any evidence that what she was saying was true." How would a witness in any court case prove that something he or she say they witnessed was true? Usually witnesses who testify in court to what they personally saw cannot prove that it was true. What proof would there be other than a recording, which few witnesses ever have? Their testimony is still considered evidence even though they cannot prove that they saw what they say they saw.

maxdancona wrote:
The court rejected her testimony because it is unsubstantiated. This isn't that complicated.

Most witnesses is court cases do not have evidence that they saw what they say they saw. That doesn't mean that their testimony is not evidence.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2020 12:13 am
@glitterbag,
glitterbag wrote:
I can send you my copies of the Mueller Report........but I bet you wouldn't read them.

How does this pertain to anything I have said?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2020 12:17 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
the Mueller report clearly stated that there were other criminal charges that would be considered after hes O. O. O.

This has nothing to do with anything in that discussion. We were discussing one and only one assertion:

"The Mueller report said that although the Trump campaign received numerous offers, they didn't accept any of them."
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2020 12:26 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:


Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

maxdancona wrote:
The Mueller investigation was an attempt to understand the Ruusian influence on our election.

This Trump tantrum is an attempt to stay in power.

They are not the same at all. I will not complain about any congressional investigation.

Trump was repeatedly said for years, and is even still said, to have actively cooperated with the Russians in election cheating. The Mueller report said that although the Trump campaign received numerous offers, they didn't accept any of them.[/size]

Any candidate in any election has the right to ask for a recount or an audit, if either the margin of victory is small or he can show evidence suggesting fraud. It isn't remotely unethical. Gore did it and others have done it. Cheating, however, is unethical.


That is NOT what the Mueller Report said.

"Mueller found no evidence members of the Trump campaign -- or anyone associated with it -- colluded with Russia during the 2016 presidential election, despite numerous offers from Kremlin-linked sources."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/more-than-half-of-americans-believe-mueller-probe-was-fair-satisfied-with-results-poll


Even that questionable source does not say that:

"The Mueller report said that although the Trump campaign received numerous offers, they didn't accept any of them."

Obviously you have difficulty reading with comprehension, Brandon.

Work on that.

It says that although the Trump campaign received numerous offers, there is no evidence they accepted any of them. My original point was that despite no evidence of such collusion, liberals repeatedly said and still say that Trump colluded with Russia to fix the 2016 election.

I will note in passing that like most liberals, you are constitutionally incapable of engaging in an argument for long with making personal comments about the person you are arguing with.
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2020 04:44 am
Quote:
I will note in passing that like most liberals, you are constitutionally incapable of engaging in an argument for long with making personal comments about the person you are arguing with.

As can be seen in many examples on A2K, this tendency to go ad hominem can be found in political arguments across the ideological spectrum and is not an exclusively liberal phenomenon. The tactic has a certain appeal and offers a measure of satisfaction, to be sure, but it's not the same as refuting an argument with facts, figures, and logic. On the other hand, no one ever convinces anyone of anything in these threads anyway, no matter how skillfully an argument is laid out, no matter how reasonable the presentation, no matter how scintillating the rhetoric, so one might as well simply cut to the chase and label one's opponent an asshole right away — before he calls you one first.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2020 06:16 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
As can be seen in many examples on A2K, this tendency to go ad hominem can be found in political arguments across the ideological spectrum and is not an exclusively liberal phenomenon.

I disagree. Conservatives only tend to do it when they are returning fire against leftist attacks.

Progressives do not deserve to be called liberals.


hightor wrote:
The tactic has a certain appeal and offers a measure of satisfaction, to be sure,

The appeal is lost on me. I wish this site was more sternly moderated so I never had to respond to such drek.


hightor wrote:
but it's not the same as refuting an argument with facts, figures, and logic.

That's for sure.


hightor wrote:
On the other hand, no one ever convinces anyone of anything in these threads anyway, no matter how skillfully an argument is laid out, no matter how reasonable the presentation, no matter how scintillating the rhetoric,

I'm willing to change my mind if I see a convincing argument.

I do not believe that the left is capable of making such an argument. But if they surprised me and made a convincing argument I'd be willing to change my mind.


hightor wrote:
so one might as well simply cut to the chase and label one's opponent an asshole right away -- before he calls you one first.

The left is dragging this site down into a mire of childish name-calling.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2020 06:36 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:


Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:


Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

maxdancona wrote:
The Mueller investigation was an attempt to understand the Ruusian influence on our election.

This Trump tantrum is an attempt to stay in power.

They are not the same at all. I will not complain about any congressional investigation.

Trump was repeatedly said for years, and is even still said, to have actively cooperated with the Russians in election cheating. The Mueller report said that although the Trump campaign received numerous offers, they didn't accept any of them.[/size]

Any candidate in any election has the right to ask for a recount or an audit, if either the margin of victory is small or he can show evidence suggesting fraud. It isn't remotely unethical. Gore did it and others have done it. Cheating, however, is unethical.


That is NOT what the Mueller Report said.

"Mueller found no evidence members of the Trump campaign -- or anyone associated with it -- colluded with Russia during the 2016 presidential election, despite numerous offers from Kremlin-linked sources."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/more-than-half-of-americans-believe-mueller-probe-was-fair-satisfied-with-results-poll


Even that questionable source does not say that:

"The Mueller report said that although the Trump campaign received numerous offers, they didn't accept any of them."

Obviously you have difficulty reading with comprehension, Brandon.

Work on that.

It says that although the Trump campaign received numerous offers, there is no evidence they accepted any of them. My original point was that despite no evidence of such collusion, liberals repeatedly said and still say that Trump colluded with Russia to fix the 2016 election.

I will note in passing that like most liberals, you are constitutionally incapable of engaging in an argument for long with making personal comments about the person you are arguing with.


Thank you for finally agreeing with me...although you did it in a slimy way, Brandon.

You originally wrote:

The Mueller report said that although the Trump campaign received numerous offers, they didn't accept any of them.

I responded, "That is NOT what the Mueller Report said."

Now you are saying, "It says that although the Trump campaign received numerous offers, there is no evidence they accepted any of them.

Two different things.

So get off your phony indignation nonsense. And you ought to practice acknowledging when you are wrong...rather than trying to weasel through the way you did here.

oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2020 06:41 am
@Frank Apisa,
Oh come on. That is silly nitpicking at best, and outright witch-hunting at worst.

Despite the McCarthyist tendencies of the left, people in America are still considered innocent until proven guilty.
0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2020 10:50 pm
@lmur,
lmur wrote:
No. Donald J Trump has not overturned the election result today.


No, not even 12/03/2020
glitterbag
 
  3  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2020 02:00 am
@neptuneblue,
It's early 12/04/2020.....but he still won't win.
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2020 10:33 pm
@glitterbag,
news of employees in the administration who are bailing in increasing numbers. I guess they feel that a "letter of recommendation" from the Boss is like having one from Charlie Manson.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2020 06:01 am
@farmerman,
his ground of attack has gotten much more slippery.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2020 06:34 am
They're getting close!

Quote:
Although he had no access to the machines, Dr. Kershavarz has looked at available data about the election and the vote results. Based on that information, he concluded

1. The counts in the disputed states (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia) show electronic manipulation.

2. The simultaneous decision in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia to pretend to halt counting votes was unprecedented and demonstrated a coordinated effort to collude toward desired results.

3. One to two percent of votes were forged in Biden's favor.

4. Optical scanners were set to accept unverified, un-validated ballots.

5. The scanners failed to keep records for audits, an outcome that must have been deliberately programmed.

6. The stolen cryptographic key, which applied to all voting systems, was used to alter vote counts.

7. The favorable votes pouring in after hours for Biden could not be accounted for by a Democrat preference for mailed in ballots. They demonstrated manipulation. For example, in Pennsylvania, it was physically impossible to feed 400,000 ballots into the machines within 2–3 hours.

8. Dominion used Chinese parts, and there's reason to believe that China, Venezuela, Cuba interfered in the election.

9. There was a Hammer and Scorecard cyber-attack that altered votes in the battleground states, and then forwarded the results to Scytl servers in Frankfurt, Germany, to avoid detection.

10. The systems failed to produce any auditable results.

Based on the above findings, Dr. Keshavarz-Nia concluded with "high confidence that the election 2020 data were altered in all battleground states resulting in a [sic] hundreds of thousands of votes that were cast for President Trump to be transferred [sic] to Vice President Biden."

This is going to be tough evidence for Democrats to counter. Back when the naïve Democrats thought Trump would be the one to commit fraud, they held congressional hearings and wrote articles about the voting machines' vulnerability. And with the New York Times touting Dr. Keshavarz-Nia's brilliance and his ability to sniff out fraud, they'll struggle to that he's not a reliable expert. Things are getting fun.


Inexplicably, it was all thrown out of court....
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2020 06:46 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:


They're getting close!

Quote:
Although he had no access to the machines, Dr. Kershavarz has looked at available data about the election and the vote results. Based on that information, he concluded

1. The counts in the disputed states (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia) show electronic manipulation.

2. The simultaneous decision in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia to pretend to halt counting votes was unprecedented and demonstrated a coordinated effort to collude toward desired results.

3. One to two percent of votes were forged in Biden's favor.

4. Optical scanners were set to accept unverified, un-validated ballots.

5. The scanners failed to keep records for audits, an outcome that must have been deliberately programmed.

6. The stolen cryptographic key, which applied to all voting systems, was used to alter vote counts.

7. The favorable votes pouring in after hours for Biden could not be accounted for by a Democrat preference for mailed in ballots. They demonstrated manipulation. For example, in Pennsylvania, it was physically impossible to feed 400,000 ballots into the machines within 2–3 hours.

8. Dominion used Chinese parts, and there's reason to believe that China, Venezuela, Cuba interfered in the election.

9. There was a Hammer and Scorecard cyber-attack that altered votes in the battleground states, and then forwarded the results to Scytl servers in Frankfurt, Germany, to avoid detection.

10. The systems failed to produce any auditable results.

Based on the above findings, Dr. Keshavarz-Nia concluded with "high confidence that the election 2020 data were altered in all battleground states resulting in a [sic] hundreds of thousands of votes that were cast for President Trump to be transferred [sic] to Vice President Biden."

This is going to be tough evidence for Democrats to counter. Back when the naïve Democrats thought Trump would be the one to commit fraud, they held congressional hearings and wrote articles about the voting machines' vulnerability. And with the New York Times touting Dr. Keshavarz-Nia's brilliance and his ability to sniff out fraud, they'll struggle to that he's not a reliable expert. Things are getting fun.


Inexplicably, it was all thrown out of court....


These idiots want to accuse the Democrats of planning and executing the most complicated and ingenious fraud ever perpetrated on planet Earth...and still do not want THEM to be the ones running our nation.

Instead, they want the morons whom they consider were duped to be the ones running it.

You cannot make the Republican insanity up. If it were a movie, no producer would take it on. They would all consider the premise to be too absurd.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2020 08:27 am
The deadline for selecting electors is midnight today.

Maybe the Supreme Court will emphatically do nothing.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2020 09:14 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

The deadline for selecting electors is midnight today.

Maybe the Supreme Court will emphatically do nothing.


I think that midnight today is the deadline for selecting electors that the congress MUST accept.

Electors may be selected after today, but the Congress has authority not to accept them.
lmur
 
  2  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2020 05:33 pm
December 8th 2020. Has Donald J. Trump overturned the election result today?

Categorically, no. Donald J. Trump has not overturned the election result today.

If I understand correctly, just the ridiculous Texas lawsuit remains for him to lose and then presumably he'll call his base to arms.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2020 05:42 pm
@lmur,
We have got 5 hours yet for the Supreme Court to step in.
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/25/2022 at 10:59:49