https://arizonasuntimes.com/news/outcomes-of-the-92-election-cases-from-the-2020-election-reveal-that-judges-didnt-review-evidence-or-address-election-fraud-part-2/ralexander/2024/03/14/
I came across the above as the author is among those who still stay engaged with the election fraud issue from 2020. Some whine when Trump refers to being robbed (a solid truth if ever there was one) as if we should just move along. That's abject stupidity. While I don't want Trump's presidency (assuming he wins in November) to be nothing more than getting even for that criminal act, I also don't want it to be forgotten, dropped, set aside or regarded as unimportant among all he could be spending his time resolving as president. This is a national travesty and needs one guy to provoke action by 50 other guys...that is, all state governors...to clean up the crap Dems imposed upon us which made our current suffering the order of the day.
This article speaks of 92 cases where the presiding judges chose not to deal with evidence at all. This is contemptible in light of the many leftist assholes who pretend there was no evidence of fraud or election problems in 2020.
Here's a helpful rule of thumb: if a leftist's lips are moving, he/she's lying to you. Start from there and force them to prove whatever it is they're saying is true. As we see here on the blogs, they'll change the subject.
While I know there have been some states which have addressed election issues and protocols, I have no confidence enough has been done to ensure truly fair and honest elections. I mean, shit, there are Democrats involved. How fair and honest could they be? How many state have cleaned up their voter roles? How many have limited the "election season" to fewer days...if not back to simply one? How many have strengthened anything having to do with election integrity?
Scant few as we see the GOP looking to "do what the Dems do", when they don't mean cheating like Dems do. They expect that somehow we'll benefit by early voting, mail-in, ballot harvesting....the talk about "banking your vote". What morons! Sean Hannity has been preaching this and the recent NYC special election to fill the George Santos seat was used by Hannity as "proof" that "banking" one's vote...voting early...is necessary because a snow storm on election day negatively impacted turnout. Well, if there was no early voting, or mail-ins, both parties would be impacted in the same way.
Cheating happened in 2020 and it manifested in a variety of ways, all of which together means that the election result was severely negatively impacted. 80+ million votes for a moron? No fucking way. That election was stolen. Period. 92 cases could have put Trump in the White House where he belonged were it not for morally bankrupt judges refusing to consider evidence.
37 comments:
The 2020 U.S. presidential election has been the subject of numerous allegations and legal challenges regarding its integrity. However, it is important to address these claims with factual information:
Claims of widespread fraud: Multiple sources, including election security officials and post-election audits, have found no evidence of widespread fraud that would have affected the outcome of the 2020 election.
Court cases and evidence: Contrary to the claim that judges did not consider evidence, courts did review the Trump campaign’s allegations of election fraud. Many lawsuits were dismissed due to jurisdictional or procedural reasons, but several judges also noted that the allegations lacked sufficient proof.
Election integrity measures: Since the 2020 election, states have enacted various laws to address voter access and election integrity. Some states have expanded voter access, while others have implemented more restrictive measures.
It’s crucial to rely on verified information and comprehensive audits when discussing election integrity. While it’s understandable to have concerns about the fairness of elections, it’s also important to recognize the efforts made by various states to ensure the security and integrity of their electoral processes. The democratic process relies on trust in the system, which is built on the foundation of accurate information and transparency.
"...several judges also noted that the allegations lacked sufficient proof."
They didn't merely *rule* that there was insufficient proof -- one might actually disagree with a ruling! -- they *noted* the insufficiency.
The best way to prove an argument is to act like it's already been proven, or maybe that's all that some people are capable of doing.
"Claims of widespread fraud: Multiple sources, including election security officials and post-election audits, have found no evidence of widespread fraud that would have affected the outcome of the 2020 election."
Really? I hear this but never see examples. And please, don't bring up Bill Barr as if he was knee deep in extensive investigations of even most claims made. His was a cursory look at best. I mention him as he's the only one I can recall you've mentioning specifically. All else has been nothing more substantive than "multiple sources". Name them. Link to their reports.
"Court cases and evidence:"
This is what the article addresses...that evidence was not even considered. Thus, how can it also be said that allegations lacked sufficient proof if they weren't even looking. Technicalities were the crutch on which they leaned to avoid doing their jobs. But in about 30 cases where they were judged on the merits, about 22 of them resulted in a positive ruling in favor of the Trump/GOP side.
"Election integrity measures"
Why was this necessary if the 2020 election was the most pure and pristine in American history, as NeverTrumpers in government claim? So long as early voting, mail-in voting (not absentee), ballot harvesting and other Dem enacted policies are still in effect, what has been done is entirely insufficient to prevent the widespread fraud so prevalent in 2020 and 2022.
"The democratic process relies on trust in the system, which is built on the foundation of accurate information and transparency."
Trust is at an all-time low, probably more so among Dem voters as the history of cheating by their party is legendary.
Keep in mind that there are two areas which had a negative impact on 2020 being fair and "transparent". The suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story. Three separate surveys indicated various degrees of Dem voters insisting they would not have voted for your idiot choice had they been aware of that story. The highest percentage saying so was around 17%, but the lowest (I don't recall the exact number) was itself enough to have made a difference in the outcome of the 2020 election, even if those people just sat out and voted for no one for president.
Then there's this:
https://fcpp.org/2021/12/29/big-tech-influence-can-tip-elections/
This guy is a Hillary supporter, not a GOP supporter. But unlike 99% of leftists/modern progressives/fake Christians from a store front congregation in Louisville, KY, he's honest.
and this:
https://nypost.com/2021/02/09/no-the-2020-election-wasnt-stolen-it-was-underhandedly-tilted/
...wherein Molly Ball writes of having worked to skew the election in favor of Biden.
In addition, there's the fact that ballots were sent to addresses which couldn't possibly house the number of people who allegedly lived there, to addresses which weren't even homes at all, but businesses like convenience stores and gas station, and to addresses which were empty lots and other sites which still somehow yielded "signed" ballots. God bless the group which exposed these criminal acts and have helped various municipalities makes changes. It needs to be nation wide, but isn't close to that yet. They've also found that even GOP Sec of State are not quick to deal with these issues.
So in addition to the many claims which have never seen the judicial light of day due to judges refusing to do their jobs, there are many other ways in which the election was fraudulently impacted in favor of one of the most useless politicians in American history some morons pretend is a better man that Trump.
Bubba,
Your succinct comment is spot on.
Bubba,
The assertion you’ve mentioned reflects a common legal distinction. When judges note something, they are acknowledging the evidence presented in the case. In contrast, a ruling is a formal decision on the matter at hand. The language used in judicial opinions can be significant, as it may indicate the court’s reasoning and approach to the evidence or lack thereof.
Regarding the 2020 election cases, judges have indeed made various rulings and statements about the sufficiency of evidence related to allegations of election fraud. For instance, in the recent developments concerning the Georgia 2020 election interference case, the court has been dealing with procedural matters, such as whether certain individuals can remain on the case123. These proceedings are part of the legal process where evidence and its sufficiency are continually evaluated.
It’s important to note that in the legal system, the burden of proof lies with the party making the allegations. Judges then assess whether the evidence meets the legal standards required to support the claims. The phrase “lacked sufficient proof” indicates that, in the judges’ assessment, the evidence presented did not meet this threshold.
As for proving an argument, it’s a strategic approach in both legal and rhetorical contexts to present an argument as if it’s already been proven, especially if one is trying to persuade an audience. However, in a legal context, the ultimate determination of an argument’s validity is made based on evidence and legal standards, not just rhetorical strategies.
While I do believe that election irregularities were a factor in 2020, I think that Trump should be careful about he talks about them and what he focuses on.
We keep seeing evidence that the voting machines can be hacked, and increasing evidence that ballots were not checked properly before being counted. It doesn't take much to swing an election. A few thousand votes in strategic districts can easily swing enough states to affect the outcomes. These things should absolutely be investigated to the fullest extent that they can.
More so, we simply need to make elections more secure, regardless of what investigations find. I've given my solutions in multiple places, and see no reason to do so here.
Finally, IMO, Trump needs to focus on election security in general instead of sounding like he's whining about the election being stolen. It's sounds stupid and while when the democrats do it, and likewise with Trump. Focus on the future. Focus on the solution instead of the problem (except as knowing the problem helps define the solution), focus on what can be done simply and easily.
And I would include focusing on Facebook, Insta, Tik Tok, and X as well.
The 2020 U.S. presidential election has been the subject of extensive scrutiny and numerous allegations. Here’s a fact-check based on available information:
Claims of widespread fraud: Multiple sources, including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the Department of Justice, have stated that they found no evidence of widespread fraud that could have affected the outcome of the 2020 election12345. Additionally, post-election audits in various states have reaffirmed the integrity of the election results.
Court cases and evidence: There were numerous lawsuits filed challenging the election results. The majority of these cases were dismissed due to lack of evidence or standing6. Only a small number resulted in decisions favorable to the Trump campaign, and these did not involve widespread fraud or result in changing the election outcome.
Election integrity measures: Measures such as early voting, mail-in voting, and ballot harvesting are legal practices in many states. These practices were expanded in some areas to ensure voter access during the COVID-19 pandemic. Election integrity measures are continually reviewed and implemented to safeguard the electoral process.
Hunter Biden laptop story impact: There have been claims that the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story influenced the election outcome. Polls suggest that some voters might have changed their vote had they known about it, but the exact impact is speculative.
Big Tech influence: Concerns have been raised about the role of Big Tech in elections, with discussions on how social media platforms handle misinformation and the spread of news stories.
Molly Ball article: Molly Ball wrote an article describing a bipartisan effort to ensure election integrity and prevent chaos during the 2020 election. The article details the collaboration between different groups to protect the democratic process.
Ballot address issues: There have been reports of ballots being sent to incorrect addresses. Investigations and audits are conducted to address and rectify such issues to maintain the accuracy of voter rolls and the integrity of the election process.
It’s important to note that while there have been various claims and concerns raised, the consensus among election officials and courts is that the 2020 election results are valid. Ongoing efforts to enhance election security and integrity continue to be a focus for state and federal authorities. If you have specific reports or evidence that you believe have not been addressed, it is recommended to bring them to the attention of the appropriate election officials or legal authorities.
How about this?
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/03/ohio_volunteers_uncover_massive_irregularities_in_voter_database.html
Dan,
I'm going to copy your nutless style here, assuming since the following links to your blog, it's really you. What the F**K is this: "Dan Trabue (Upgraded, Embalmed Version)"? Is someone commandeering your name again? When I copy/pasted it to post in this comment box, "Anonymous" appeared before it (I deleted that to put it in quotes as it reads with the attached comments). The comments don't read as if they're actually you. It's your type of nonsense, but it's as if you told someone like, for example, your wife what your thoughts are and she typed it up for you. I intend to respond to them later, but what the hey?
This article speaks of 92 cases where the presiding judges chose not to deal with evidence at all. This is contemptible in light of the many leftist assholes who pretend there was no evidence of fraud or election problems in 2020.
As the article states, "[i]his was in large part because the lawsuits didn’t allege election fraud." This, of course, is because election deniers never had any evidence that would hold up in a court of law.
"This was in large part because the lawsuits didn’t allege election fraud, which is a very specific crime that usually requires a lot of discovery. Lawsuits challenging election outcomes generally cite other laws that are broken, which has long been considered sufficient to overturn elections. Judges issued their rulings in the 2020 cases without getting into the evidence or much discovery.
Most of the 92 cases involved challenges to illegal actions taken by election officials, which the judges dismissed by invoking technical reasons such as lack of standing, lack of jurisdiction, laches — which means brought too late, moot, or not ripe."
It's a semantic game your kind plays. "Fraud" has a legal definition ("which is a very specific crime"), and a more colloquial usage which covers all the crap that your kind perpetrated to prevent the re-election of Trump "by any means necessary". So even with other crimes being committed to selectively impact the election, evidence was not given a fair hearing in those cases.
But then to assert "election deniers never had any evidence that would hold up in a court of law" is a specious claim if courts were actively avoiding their moral duty to review any of it, regardless of the proper legal term for each crime. Nice try.
Dan Trabue (Upgraded, Embalmed Version)
I don't believe you are Dan Trabue. If you are, I expect to see confirmation at your own blog before I post any of your comments now sitting in moderation awaiting my approval for posting. It is quite ironic, in my opinion, that someone would be so cowardly as to appropriate the name of someone who constantly acts in a cowardly fashion. I may respond to comments already allowed, but not to any others until you fess up and produce your actual name. I don't usually care if nom de plumes are used, but since you think it's cool to appropriate Dan's name...the only real act of courage (not that he thought of doing otherwise without considerations regarding courage) by Dan is to use his own name. Do likewise and you'll have almost unlimited freedom to have your comments posted here.
BTW, as regards your a pen name as opposed to your own, you'll note my actual name is easily found in my profile. Get a blog of your own (you don't need to post anything, just have one) and make sure you actual name is easily determined there. This theft of identity won't be tolerated.
So, Dan just confirmed for me that you are not him. Thus, you must provide your real name if you want me to post your comments from this point on.
"Fraud" has a legal definition ("which is a very specific crime"), and a more colloquial usage which covers all the crap that your kind perpetrated to prevent the re-election of Trump "by any means necessary".
Yes. Fraud has a legal definition and there is no evidence of legally actionable fraud. Your "colloquial" usage is just snowflakes whining because Trump lost.
Nice that you pervert the point. Typical and expertly done. The cases in question didn't use the term fraud as it is legally defined, but the entire episode was rife with fraudulent practices as honest people generally use the word. But given you're not among that honorable group, why you go ahead and continue playing semantic games as you pretend you're defending fair elections. That's what your kind does. You lie.
The cases in question didn't use the term fraud as it is legally defined . . . .
That is exactly correct. That is why Trump lost them.
[T]he entire episode was rife with fraudulent practices as honest people generally use the word.
Honest people know that courts decide cases based on what the law actually says, not based on the whining of losers who worship pathological liars like Trump.
"That is exactly correct. That is why Trump lost them."
Trump can't lose a case which wasn't heard. They avoided considering the merits of the cases by citing bullshit technical reasons.
"Honest people know that courts decide cases based on what the law actually says, not based on the whining of losers who worship pathological liars like Trump."d
And clearly you prove you never read the article because you're defaulting to the typical lying leftist bullshit instead. And to suggest that recognizing the reality of Trump's superior ability as president as evidenced by his superior presidency when compared to either Obama or Biden, exposes you as just a typical lefty moron who cares little for his own children. Citing the many instances and methods of election fraud (meant in the general sense honest people understand) is not "whining", anymore than you'd be whining if someone visited you each day and kicked you in your lady bits compelling calls to the police. Imagine if they chose not to listen, not to look at any evidence you might have had, made claims that you waited too long to report or some other negligent crap. Would you take kindly to others insisting you lost your case? This is what has been going on with these many cases referenced in the article you didn't read.
Stop being an asshole, Vinny. That's why feo exists.
And by the way...we're seeing examples of how courts ignore the law with the four Trump now unjustly suffers. But that's leftism for you. Your TDS will accept any and every indignity and rejection of justice so long as that gun is aimed at Trump.
Trump can't lose a case which wasn't heard. They avoided considering the merits of the cases by citing bullshit technical reasons.
Don't blame the courts for the fact that Trump didn't plead legally actionable election fraud and didn't have valid evidence of legally actionable election fraud. Cases based on “colloquial” fraud rather than actual election fraud have no merits worth considering.
Citing the many instances and methods of election fraud (meant in the general sense honest people understand) is not "whining" . . . .
Trump has told (and continues to tell) countless lies about the election being stolen, and those lies have alleged conduct that would actually qualify as election fraud under the law if they were true: suitcases full of ballots, truckloads full of ballots, machines programmed to switch votes, illegal aliens voting, dead people voting. The problem of course is that the evidence never supported these claims. You wouldn't be whining about the election being stolen by “colloquial” election fraud if you truly believed that there was any really any evidence of actual election fraud.
Come back once you can prove you read and understand the article to which I linked in the post. There you will find they don't speak of cases where the legal term of "fraud" was used. They used terms relative to the individual complaints of each and it was evidence for that which was not addressed, avoided and dismissed without proper adjudication.
"Trump has told (and continues to tell) countless lies about the election being stolen..."
The only lies told about the 2020 election are by those like yourself. The various ways in which the election was dishonestly run have been listed for the likes of you many times, but as dishonesty is SOP for your kind, you pretend none of them are true.
"...and those lies have alleged conduct that would actually qualify as election fraud under the law if they were true..."
But they are true, and you affirm that with this:
"suitcases full of ballots, truckloads full of ballots, machines programmed to switch votes, illegal aliens voting, dead people voting. The problem of course is that the evidence never supported these claims."
But you people insisted there was never any evidence, and now you say evidence never supported the claims. OK. Provide a link to any which was resolved in a court of law after the evidence was weighed on its merits. I'll wait here while you don't. The article linked in the post speaks of over 90 cases where evidence was never considered. If it's not considered, how can it be said the claims were unfounded? Answer: because TDS sufferers insisted they were...NOT because any were proven so.
"You wouldn't be whining about the election being stolen by “colloquial” election fraud if you truly believed that there was any really any evidence of actual election fraud."
It doesn't matter what term is used, lying Vinny. It matters what happened...what was true. It was true that info uncovered by a free, honest press was suppressed by agents of the federal government which would have led as many as 17% of Biden voters to withhold their support for him. They wouldn't have had to vote at all, but it's hard to believe it wouldn't have significantly impacted Electoral vote totals. Other states altered their election procedures without approval of their state legislatures, the only authority for doing so. Mail-in ballots...themselves not approved by state legislatures...were sent to non-residence locations, but yielded votes. This was shown to be a fact which due to its discovery resulted in Wisconsin's senate race properly decided. Ballot harvesting was shown to be greatly abused in many places, but that only accounts for incidents discovered. Residency requirements were ignored, intentionally or not.
Don't come here and pretend it's ever been proven that 2020 was fairly and honestly run. It hasn't and it clearly wasn't. It was a stolen election. Stolen by the overlords of your morally bankrupt faction of the American population.
2020 election fraud proven in Georgia:
https://traffic.americanmilitarynews.com/2024/04/video-election-fraud-exposed-in-georgia-reports/
We keep hearing about election fraud, or at least election irregularities and failure to follow procedure, and I have no doubt that at least some of it is True. But that's quite a leap from that to concluding that there was enough fraud to tip the election. It seems, to me, much more profitable to focus on the election that is happening in November and how to prevent the fraud, and counteract the DFL's reliance on various tactics. Obviously we now know what to look for, and the biggest thing that needs to happen is for election judges to fight for proper procedures and to stay in the room until all votes are secured and verified. It means having video coverage of everything. As long as y'all keep re fighting 2020, that'll only increase the probability that we'll be unprepared for 2024.
No it won't. I'm working from the premise that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." (George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905) I'm not saying do nothing but, however. But if those past crimes are not constantly referenced, they will indeed be ignored. I want those who truly desire election integrity to be constantly motivated to insure we have it, and the crimes of the past must always be fresh in everyone's mind to keep that motivation high. Too many wrote off all the many examples of fraud, irregularity and interference and as it all drifted further into the past, they act more like it was total myth or fiction. That works perfectly for them, as emotions fade along with it and thus the realization that assholes are working to solidify their power base. We need to keep talking about how 2020...and 2022...were rife with problems which did indeed make a difference in the outcome, just as we must constantly speak of the problems of the current administration, as well as policies of Dems/lefties/marxists in other levels of government and authority.
With that in mind, I believe you're part of the problem in suggesting there wasn't enough criminality of some type which swung the 2020 election. There was never enough factual negatives against Trump, nor any factual positives in favor of Biden which explains the outcome other than fraud, interference and other election irregularities. Trump's record of presidential performance far outweighed Obama's and Biden's track record of incompetence and impotence throughout his almost 50 years in government should have made him a totally forgotten fart long before he got to 15 years in government. Try to argue against these truths and tell me the majority of Americans thought Biden was the better choice or Trump was truly unworthy of a second term. It can't be done.
So how do we explain it? "Just one of those things????"
And it's not only still happening, it's worse than ever as we see bullshit criminal and civil charges brought against Trump which constitutes election interference. Media complicity continues. Morons still try to pretend Trump grabbed women by the crotch! Few states have done away with mail-in ballots, so the ease of cheating remains where mail-in balloting remains. With this and so much more, there's little being done to resolve these issues enough to where these behaviors CAN'T tip an election! Get freakin' real!
So yeah, we need more done to eliminate these problems yesterday. Have you contacted your reps lately?
I think that Obama gave the democrat party the boost it needed to permanently stay in power. Republicans look like nutcases to most people nowadays and fail to realize that the democrats are not any better.
I personally do not see the need to defend every word and action of Trump. He was an fascinating candidate in 2016, but we need to move on from him. If it takes a landslide loss this November for the GOP to wake up and smell the coffee, so be it.
Trump will undoubtedly scream "fraud" this fall. He already is, despite the general election still being months away. It doesn't matter that conservative judges and legislatures heard his claims in 2020 and almost unanimously rejected them.
Thus, it appears that we are stuck with high grocery prices, wide open borders, and every other problem that the current administration has created.
Jesse,
I see your first paragraph as a contradiction. The second sentence stands as why Dems have a strong hold on power. Obama was always an empty suit, though his plan was to spread his marxist ideology. We put up John McCain and then followed up with Mitt Romney, each of whom despite their own shortcomings should have been able to easily shred Obama in the eyes of his own supporters simply by proving what a worthless putz he was (and still is). Indeed, one could bring him up every now and then in order to remind people who they supported and what he proves himself to be still. (I wanted to create a bumper sticker to put between my two "Nobama" stickers, which would have said, "Vote Mccain: He's Less Crappy!" Indeed. The best thing about McCain was Sarah Palin. She should get back in the game somehow.)
Republicans suck at politics, but they're better people with better ideas and beliefs.
I wouldn't defend every word and action of Trump were it not for so many center right people who needlessly and stupidly crap on him for stupid things he says and does (in their minds, anyway). We don't need perfect. We need better. Trump has proven himself to be far, far better than any Dem could ever be. That he may have been "a fascinating candidate in 2016" is worthless compared to what a great president he was, which for people of even average intelligence should make him THE candidate we need right now.
One could well argue the candidate we needed was DeSantis. But neither DeSantis nor anyone else impressed enough primary voters, so Trump's the man. We DO NOT "NEED" to move on from him. We need to support him for the sake of our nation and our children and grandchildren. To "move on from him" at this stage of the game, when he's the very type of person we need as he's shown himself to be effective in the face of far more obstruction and bullshit than I've ever seen a president endure, is spectacularly self-destructive.
Each of us who leans right needs to find a lefty and show him the facts about this guy's record and compare it to the crappy record of any Dem they want to pretend would be better. Given the current state of the nation, those who reject Trump hate their children. It's that simple.
Each of us who leans right needs to wake up the fools who think another four years of Dem control is what we need. What kind of suicidal crap is that?
Trump screaming fraud will likely be another case of actual fraud having denied him yet again. It was fraud that led to Biden, not any true argument for him or against Trump. It's clear you need to read the article to which I linked in the post. It matters greatly to me and other people who love their children and nation that no one should have rejected his claims, but instead have actually investigated them like the alleged law enforcement people they like to believe they are.
I'm ashamed of every conservative and conservative Christian who isn't taking this shit seriously. Any who reject Trump and believe we'll benefit by him losing in November is a fool. Period.
I am merely highlighting what I perceive to be a lack of self-awareness in other people. Obama is an excellent speaker and organizer; people tend to go with whatever sounds or feels good to them as opposed to what is objectively better for them. There is not a day that goes by in which I fail to notice thousands of people defending the democratic party on various blogs, forums, and platforms.
It is precisely because the GOP is weak that it will likely screw up this upcoming election cycle. It is poor reasoning to vote in Trump as the nominee when he has as much baggage as he does and has only four more years left to serve as president should he win. I think that reflects poorly on part of the voting base. He should have been retired; he had his chance already and blew it.
It is not as though no one else could implement the same kind of policies that Trump had in place. Small minds can think only in binary terms. I understand that this is a topic you feel strongly about. Political discussions nowadays are usually deeply polarizing and are often based on personal convictions and interpretations of events.
This country is so bitterly divided, being caught up in racial rhetoric and the use of gender pronouns. It is hard for me to conceive that many democrats will abandon their current party platform in favor of ours. Obviously, the temperature needs to cool down on both sides of the aisle.
I did not literally suggest that democrat control of everything is good. I noted how reckless they have been in their handling of things. My point is that if it takes Biden winning another four years for republicans to wake up to the reality that their actions (e.g. nominating a weak candidate) have consequences, then it is something they have no choice but to accept and live with.
Art,
I realize that you are starting with the premise that absolutely nothing except massive voter fraud could possibly explain Trump's loss. However, much like Dan, I fail to see any reason to simply accept this claim absent any evidence. As I said, I see all sorts of claims that get put out from time to time, yet never see them hold up. Obviously it's impossible to fix the problems that exist without some reference to 2020, hence I'm not suggesting we ignore it entirely. I am suggesting that learning from what actually happened, or what people think happened is the only way to stop future problems. It seems strange to have this be a primary campaign issue, despite the importance. The simple fix for the problem is to put people in the positions of election judge/poll worker etc who are committed to the integrity of elections. It doesn't seem to be a legislative matter, as virtually all election fraud is already illegal. It is a matter of focusing on electing local prosecutors who will aggressively pursue voting fraud no matter what.
What a strange position to take. I'm part of the problem because I think that we should see actual convincing evidence, preferably in court or admissible in court, before we jump to conclusions. Because I've said for years that regardless of anything else, election/vote security should always be of paramount importance.
I'm not going to re argue your unwavering support of Trump, and your insistence that it's virtually impossible to find enough negative things about Trump to justify his loss. it's a complete waste of time. I understand that you need something or someone to blame for Trump's loss, and that I'm a convenient target.
I feel compelled to note that, despite your tone, the end of your comment pretty much agrees with what I said. That obsessing about the past is worthless, if nothing changes. You admit that very little has changed, yet all we hear from you is about the past, not the future.
As voter fraud is already illegal here, voting procedures are not something that the federal legislature is involved in, and there's no federal voting standards bill on the horizon, I fail to see how calling my rep will solve the problem. If I do anything, it'll be to be involved as a poll worker or election judge which might actually do some good.
Jesse,
Obviously, I sympathize with your position. Trump was an interesting (if bad) candidate in 16, a reasonably successful president, and a less the good candidate in 20. I think his shtick is old and tired, and that despite Art's insistence, that he record isn't great. He had some wins, but he also had some losses.
The problem is that we have had three elections in a row where both candidates are bad. Trump is clearly the lesser of two evils, and clearly (IMO) going to be better than Biden. Even though his ability to achieve much legislatively will depend on the composition of congress and Trump's ability to actually negotiate wit congress. As I have in the last two elections,
Craig,
"I realize that you are starting with the premise that absolutely nothing except massive voter fraud could possibly explain Trump's loss."
There's far more evidence of fraud and interference than there is for Trump being the reason he lost, unless you believe that he's to blame for not disabusing all who irrationally hate and reject him from so doing. If it was Trump to blame, then all talk of subsequent GOP presidents suffering the same as he has suffered is rank bullshit.
As to how good a candidate he's been, one might be able to argue that with regard to 2016, but there's that little problem of him taking the primaries and then the general which belies that claim...particularly the primaries. "Bad" candidates don't come from nowhere with no experience and beat out what many regard as "career" politicians. If you want to focus on his character flaws, his campaign and the fact that he wasn't a politician and a successful business man mitigated those flaws in the minds of all those who put him over the top.
Now move to 2020. His more serious character flaws played no role whatsoever in his presidency, as he didn't cheat on his wife or anything like that. Talk of his having "trouble with truth" is wildly overblown as to date, no one has brought forth any falsehood of consequence he's expressed. "Mean tweets" and name calling, both aimed at those who attacked him, were likely entertaining to more people than not, but were also overblown by those who already irrationally disliked him. Despite a few negatives of his presidency, most notably his support for COVID "vaccines", one must be keen on finding fault to pretend or assert his presidency wasn't largely a great success. Thus, to suggest fraud and interference wasn't the main reason why a proven moron who didn't campaign would beat him out requires an extraordinary suspension of belief.
As to evidence, those who won't seek it out, or at least rely upon the testimonies of those who have (I'm not referring to me), haven't the standing to say they've seen none. One must investigate claims...and there were many...as well as acknowledge all other forms of interference which impacted voting choices. I've name several already and it was a short list. Don't forget all the crap he had to face while nonetheless succeeding in the job....Russian collusion hoax, "quid pro quo" phone call with Zalensky, incitement of an insurrection, "good nazis", "all Mexicans are animals", "shithole" countries, WaPo's laughable list of Trump lies, joking about a cripple, he's a racist, a misogynist, Putin stooge, inject bleach to cure Covid, trade war with China crippled the economy, kids in cages, tear-gassed protesters out of Lafayette Park for a photo op, the "muslim ban", 2017 tax cuts only for the rich...
The above are just a few examples of all that influences public sentiment and they are far greater lies as a result than any stretching of the truth Trump ever uttered. Here's an example: Google "lies about Trump" and then give a percentage of those which are actually links to articles dealing with lies (like those I've listed) about Trump, versus the shitload speaking to alleged lies by Trump. That's an example of another way the public was purposely and falsely influenced against Trump...search engines and social media attacking him while never attacking lefties with equal zeal.
So how do we deal with THAT?? How did Trump force that kind level of lies against him? Who was out there correcting the misinformation on a wide scale to offset the impact on public perception? What were YOU doing in your own sphere of influence in that regard?
There are many who don't care. You could take them by the scruff of the neck and show them how their sources lied straight up and it won't make a difference. They're like Dan given over to his corruption. They ARE the lies themselves. But not all of them. They are OUR targets, and I've brought a couple into the light. They don't have their heads of Trump's ass any more than I do. But they recognize that he did do very well as president and as a result it's logical and rational to suppose he'll do so again.
He has a right to bitch about 2020. It's a lie to suggest that's all he does.
As to your reps, are you suggesting you have none in your state? Those are the reps you have to nag about election integrity. Your federal reps need to hear from you as well, but your local reps matter most with regard to your state election procedures, laws and enforcement.
You are part of the problem, Craig. So is Jesse, so is Stan, so is anyone else who claims to care about the nation, but thinks Trump is a bad candidate because he's not up to your lofty standards. It's true. You absolutely CAN'T find enough negatives to justify his loss in 2020, because there simply aren't enough which exist. You just assert there are, Dan...I mean...Craig.
Yawn, Marshal misrepresents me by claiming I think that Biden's win is somehow justifiable. I never indicated that anywhere in my comments. The voters have only themselves to blame for him being in power right now. It is just that I think there are better people for the job than Trump, and that doesn't mean I am guilty of anything except having a different opinion.
"Yawn, Marshal misrepresents me by claiming I think that Biden's win is somehow justifiable. I never indicated that anywhere in my comments."
Uh...yes, you did.
"If it takes a landslide loss this November for the GOP to wake up and smell the coffee, so be it."
"My point is that if it takes Biden winning another four years for republicans to wake up to the reality that their actions (e.g. nominating a weak candidate) have consequences, then it is something they have no choice but to accept and live with."
To presume a Biden win might "wake up" the GOP, you are presenting that win as justified.
It's true the voters have only themselves to blame. That would be those voters who denied Trump in 2020 and intend to deny him in November. But this conflicts with the notion that Trump has only himself to blame for his election loss. The reality is that it takes both candidate and voters to result in the best possible election outcome and the consequences which flow from it. Trump's done his part by performing in the office to a far better extent than those like you, Craig and others seem willing to admit. The focus on his "baggage", the insignificant and superficial over what matters is a flaw in the character of all voters who play this dangerous game.
Given Trump's great performance in his duties as president, there is no other who could be presumed to be better for the job, as he's tested and all others are not. And even if one considers all the candidates with executive experience as state governors...DeSantis, Haley, Pence, Hutchinson, Christie, Burgum...only DeSantis stands out for exceptional performance. But that isn't quite the same as the highest executive office in the land and as such, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.
To say we need to "move on" from Trump as if his ways are no longer viable, as if his ways are outdated, is absurd. He's a winner and winners don't go out of style. No one gets as far as he has in business without taking hits and adjusting. To suppose that he won't be better having taken the hits he has is a major stretch. There's no guarantees, but it seems those who disparage him believe it's a guarantee we'd be better and will do better without him. Given what's been happening since he was last denied, I'm not willing to take that risk.
Again, he's battle tested and the enemy...Democrats...will be stepping up their efforts regardless of who the GOP puts in the Big Chair. DeSantis is the only guy I can believe would fare well in the face of that, but he's out at present.
Trump's the guy now. It will be him or suffering. That's the choice.
I still did not say what you are trying to force my words to mean. Saying that we've got the kind of government that we deserve is not tantamount to saying that Biden's victory is a good thing for us. On the contrary, it reflects poorly on the electorate. Even if I did say that there was a potentially positive consequence to Biden winning, it does not follow that him being president is a good thing in and of itself. The two cannot be conflated. You are overreacting to what I've said and reading too much into it.
"Even if I did say that there was a potentially positive consequence to Biden winning, it does not follow that him being president is a good thing in and of itself. The two cannot be conflated. You are overreacting to what I've said and reading too much into it."
But you did say that by suggesting a Biden win would result in the GOP "waking up", which ostensibly is a positive consequence as stated.
I don't deserve this government because I clearly foresaw nothing but negatives as most likely, which is why I supported Trump in 2020. We as a people might be deserving because too many of our nation are abject morons to suppose Trump was unworthy and Biden would be better.
No one said Biden was better than Trump...
I was wondering what you thought of this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYGgqG3VcvE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi3m00gUUCw
This is why I say we will never have another Republican president. We needed someone who could serve two terms!!!
Shit! I just completed a detailed response and then accidentally deleted it! Shit!
Jesse,
"No one said Biden was better than Trump..."
Except for Dan, but he's not participating at the moment.
"I was wondering what you thought of this video:"
Not much. Trump-hating hacks praising money totals for Biden. Didn't watch the whole thing. Don't know if they mentioned how they came to raise that much dough. I doubt it was through dinners at $20 per plate. The recent Radio City Music Hall soiree had people paying anywhere from $225 to $500,000. Pretty easy to set records with those prices being shelled out. Hollywood lefties send mucho dinero to insure America will die.
It did parallel what the lefty in your second link was trying to say was certain, that Haley voters and other allegedly right-winging Trump-haters are joining up with the Suicide Squad. I know such people exist as they were complicit in denying Trump an incredibly deserved second term. "Conservatives" made all manner of pseudo-intellectual arguments for withholding their votes for him. Stupid cuts across political boundaries and the stupid of the right are still making stupid arguments against Trump, with even some who insist they'll vote for him wasting time focusing on stupid crap rather than truth and what matters.
We need Trump, because he's the best guy to be up front telling the left they're full of shit, while proposing that which will actually benefit the nation. Can other do what Trump can do? Don't know. Maybe DeSantis, but unless Trump is imprisoned, I don't know if we'll be seeing him sworn in in Jan '25. No. Trump's the guy right now and anybody who dares suggest they care about their children and their nation needs to be supporting him in every way possible. Such people also need to be constantly contacting their reps and senators on both the state and federal level to get with the program...the US Constitution/America First program...and to continue holding their feet to the fire long after the election. Don't let their party affiliation make a difference. Make you voice heard constantly and without stopping. File a form letter and email it 2 or 3 times per week until you get a legit response.
This is war. A war for our survival as a nation which reflects the vision of the founding fathers...a vision lost to too many who dare call themselves Americans. No Democrat gives a flying fuck about that vision. The consequences are being suffered now.
I have grandchildren. I'm done playing nice with those who insist on being stupid and putting my grandchildren at risk. Don't be stupid. At this point, it's Trump or suffering. There's no other choice.
Post a Comment