WideNine

Was doing fine propping up the Bills and then he had to add Borq to the list. Every time that dude punts I feel like I am shaking a magic 8 ball. Some things just don't belong together:

As to the Russian collusion or cooperation or collaboration, I have done that several times in several posts and the Trump cultist just want to argue the semantics and defend the indefensible actions of his campaign - ignorance of criminal actions is not the same as they did not happen. A position I highly doubt they would ever take for another sitting president. That is why I believe those that blindly follow Trump are not US patriots as they put that conman before our Country. To understand obstruction, you first need to understand Article 1 of the Constitution regarding the right Congress has to impeach and what that entails in regards to subpoenas, access to witnesses and testimony, as well as access to financial records. If you do not understand or agree on that branch providing those checks against the Executive branch than elucidating more is pointless. Just remember it could just as well in the future be a GOP run house trying to put the brakes on a Democratic President abusing his Executive branch powers. In the game of political and partisan one-upmanship these obstruction precedents only create the reason for the other party to up the ante and respond in kind. Also if you do not understand the very open and unethical nature of a sitting President Tweeting out threats against those that oppose him (whistle-blowers, inspector generals doing their jobs, DHS heads confirming election security) and retaliating against those perceived threats (the black Friday firings) then you really do not understand what "obstruction" means. The second impeachable offense was withholding Ukrainian aid approved for immediate release by Congress in lieu of Ukraine obtaining dirt on his political rival Biden. This was directed by Trump, and executed in typical clumsy ham-fisted style by Rudy. Lastly, out of all that stuff you through out there I guess to smear Harris, it seems rather thin, but I did have to laugh as you made me research and lo and behold Michael Avenatti makes an appearance - that ambulance chaser who was trying to shake down a President using a porn star. I keep saying you can't make this stuff up:) The facts: Ford never recanted her version of events although many dubious articles circulated that claimed she did - she did not. There was a Jane Doe letter sent to Harris' office from an accuser that she responsibly and immediately passed to the Senate Judiciary Committee. There was no merit to that allegation and it was dismissed. The claims of sexual assault from Ford and Ramirez were never disproved nor were they referred to the justice department. I personally find their stories compelling enough to have looked elsewhere for a conservative justice. The more complete story: The handwritten anonymous letter in question was sent to Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris’ office, which immediately passed the letter along to Senate Judiciary Committee investigators on Sept. 25. The letter, signed “Jane Doe” from Oceanside, California, alleged that Kavanaugh and another man raped her in the backseat of a car. On Sept. 26, Senate committee staff questioned Kavanaugh about the accusations in the letter. Kavanaugh said the claim was “ridiculous,” “a crock” and “didn’t happen.” A transcript of the interview and the text of the letter were publicly released by the committee that day, and a few media outlets — but only a few — reported on it. On Oct. 3, two days before the Senate narrowly confirmed Kavanaugh, the judiciary committee got an email from Judy Munro-Leighton in which she claimed to be “Jane Doe from Oceanside CA.” However, during a phone interview with judiciary investigators on Nov. 1, Munro-Leighton “admitted, contrary to her prior claims, that she had not been sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh and was not the author of the original ‘Jane Doe’ letter,” according to a letter from Sen. Chuck Grassley referring Munro-Leighton to the attorney general and FBI for investigation into possible charges: making a materially false statement to a Senate committee and obstruction. According to Grassley’s letter, Munro-Leighton said she made up the story to “grab attention” and that it was “just a ploy” to oppose Kavanaugh’s confirmation.To be clear, though, Senate investigators don’t know who wrote the original, anonymous letter that was sent to Harris’ office, only that it wasn’t Munro-Leighton. As we said, the allegations contained in the anonymous letter were not widely reported by national media outlets, certainly not as widely as the allegations made by Ford, Deborah Ramirez — a classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Yale who said he exposed himself to her at a party — and Julie Swetnick — who claimed she witnessed Kavanaugh grabbing women inappropriately. In addition to Munroe-Leighton, Grassley referred Swetnick and her attorney, Michael Avenatti, to the Justice Department for criminal investigation related to a potential conspiracy to provide materially false statements to Congress and obstruction. No referral to the Justice Dept has been made for Ford or Ramirez.

It is kind of sad really as the house of cards and illusion that Trump created for them starts to blow away like a fart in the wind, that Fox propped him up as his State-Run propaganda outlet, but his threats of competing for their viewers has made them fire a few shots of legit reporting over his bow. If Fox defects, they will have to follow their cult leader to some other venue - sound familiar? Twitter holds him to a standard of honesty and he tells his cult followers to go to Parler, Fox starts to hold him to a standard in retaliation for his viewership-siphoning threats and he tells his cult to migrate somewhere else... just ridiculous. When held up to any real scrutiny his actions are always twisted and laced with falsehood - you scratch the surface of Trump and you find a con, you scratch down another layer and there is just more con... that is how he continues to run a business it is always this hamster wheel of bankruptcies and then back to the propaganda about how great the next venture will be, then bankruptcies and repeat... He could give P. T. Barnum lessons on conning suckers.

Team Trump Legal Defections - there should be a tracker:) Below is a timeline of the drama on Trump’s legal team: Nov. 8: Snell & Wilmer, the largest law firm representing the Trump campaign, moves to withdraw from litigation in Arizona, a day after filing its lawsuit. Nov. 9: The New York Times reports widespread discomfort among employees of Jones Day, another large law firm that has represented Trump, who expressed concern that the firm was participating in Trump’s effort to undermine the integrity of elections. Nov. 10: A judge allows Snell & Wilmer to withdraw. Nov. 10: Jones Day issues a statement saying it “is not representing President Trump, his campaign, or any affiliated party in any litigation alleging voter fraud.” (Some of Trump’s lawyers have stopped short of echoing his claims of outright fraud, even as they question the legitimacy of some ballots.) Jones Day emphasizes that it is “representing the Pennsylvania GOP” and says it will not withdraw from litigation. Nov. 12: Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, another large firm representing the Trump campaign, moves to withdraw from litigation in Pennsylvania four days after filing suit. Nov. 13: Jones Day tells employees that it won’t get involved in additional litigation. Nov. 13: Trump puts Giuliani in charge after the campaign’s latest setback in Maricopa County, Ariz. Nov. 14: Trump makes Giuliani’s posting official and announces four others who will lead his team. Two of them are the husband-wife team of Joseph diGenova and Victoria Toensing, who were announced as new members of Trump’s legal team during the Russia investigation in 2018 but whose hiring was halted two days later over conflicts. The others are Sidney Powell, who most recently has served as lawyer to former Trump national security adviser Michael T. Flynn, and Jenna Ellis, the Trump campaign’s legal adviser. Both have promoted baseless allegations and suggestions of substantial voter fraud. Nov. 15: The Trump campaign narrows its lawsuit in Pennsylvania, and Porter Wright Morris & Arthur is removed as counsel in the updated document. It is replaced by Texas lawyer John B. Scott, who joins Pennsylvania lawyer Linda A. Kerns on the case. Nov. 16: Scott, Kerns and a third lawyer in the Pennsylvania case, Douglas Bryan Hughes, move to withdraw. The judge allows Scott and Hughes to do so but not Kerns. Pennsylvania lawyer Scaringi joins the case as lead counsel, despite having said recently on his radio show that “in my view, the litigation will not work” and that “it will not reverse this election.” Scaringi asks for a delay in a scheduled hearing the following day, saying he and a colleague “need additional time to adequately prepare.” The motion is rejected. Nov. 17: Giuliani joins as counsel in the Pennsylvania case, appearing in court. Kerns declines an opportunity to speak, citing her request to withdraw. Nov. 19: The judge allows Kerns to withdraw.

Rudy....Rudy.... who is this "WE" do you have a mouse you are fondling in your pocket? Pennsylvania Judge both mocks and dismisses baseless Giuliani lawsuit: Brann concluded that the hearing was no longer needed after longtime Trump ally Rudy Giuliani, who joined the Trump campaign’s legal team in court, had said that the ongoing Pennsylvania court challenge “is not a fraud case.” Instead, the Trump team’s allegations resemble smoke and mirrors — and smoke and mirrors don’t need a hearing at which to present evidence in court. It gets even better when Giuliani tried to get the judge to issue an injunction against the lawyers representing the electorate in PA on the grounds they were making "threatening" phone calls to his fellow lawyer Linda Kerns. Brann also denied a request from Trump’s legal team to sanction the other side over what one of Trump’s lawyers, Linda Ann Kearns, claimed to be threatening phone calls. During a hearing in the case on Tuesday, Brann said that “the word I would use would be 'mockery' to describe the tone of the calls", which he admitted were “regrettable” but simply did not rise to the level of threat that the Trump legal team claimed. https://bipartisanreport.com/2020/11/18/pennsylvania-judge-embarrasses-giuliani-cancels-hearing/ You can't make this stuff up. I always felt his administration was some kind of bizarre mashup of WWF and the best of Jerry Springer that capable people he appointed to cabinet roles fled from screaming - now it is like they let the cameras in the room so the world can see the reality TV of the Trump administration. And if he threatens to compete with Fox he could easily lose his propaganda outlet that has repeatedly gone out on a limb to lie or spread conspiracies to provide him cover and pander to his base. Make America Great Again?????? He is just embarrassing us around the globe.

Just shocking Tucker.... and here you were parroting all that nonsense for the past few weeks. Welcome to the world of actual investigative journalism where you do the minimum fact-checking of your sources. What a hack.

How can the courts dismiss them if they are innumerable irregularities? I guess the quality of the evidence trumps the quantity of alleged evidence.

Not sure what planet this Sommers lady is from, but proof of Russian influence to sway the 2016 election is now a matter of public record. I know Tweets of denial and "witch hunt!" are less words and easier to consume, but just repeating over and over that something did not happen does not undo what actually happened. The 5th and I think latest version of the Bi-Partisan Senate Intelligence Report regarding Russian interference and coordination with the Trump campaign in 2016. It is not for the faint of heart as it is 966 pages long - amazingly detailed for a "hoax" somehow produced by both sides of the Senate isle, but you can get the gist of it by reading the findings. https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/18/politics/fifth-senate-russia-intel-report/index.html this is the fastest link to download the Report itself. Folks should take the time to read it and consider this is something rare that the GOP and Dems on the committee could both reluctantly agree to release while still containing a lot redacted material and many resources and their information hid behind the DOJ or Executive privilege or JDA (joint defense agreements - attorney client privilege). In this release they agreed to leave the partisan posturing and spin to conclusions regarding Trump himself to the end. Those are split down party lines, but at least if folks read the report itself they can draw their own conclusions. There's some real gems in there too - like how the White House tried to claim executive privilege for most of Trump and his associates actions BEFORE he was president - a precedent of privilege for a President Elect in Transition put forward by then counsel Don McGahn - most felt this was a stretch. Trump Jr. and Kushner were both able to obstruct the investigation by hiding behind a JDA that claimed attorney client privilege. An example of our f'd up campaign finance structure after Citizens United that allows foreign money to be funneled into campaigns - Gates recalled that a Manafort-controlled Cypriot account, LOAV, contributed money to 501c(4) entity that supported the John McCain presidential campaign. Gates stated that the money was from Deripaska. And some of this stuff you just can't make up. When it became clear that Manafort had several Russian connections and the news was going to be released: For instance, while Steve Bannon was the recipient of short messages of encouragement from Manafort and responded in kind, Bannon made clear internally that he thought further interactions with Manafort would negatively impact the Campaign. In response to Priebus forwarding Manafort's November 5, 2016 memorandum to him, Bannon responded, "We need to avoid manafort like he has a disease. Dems will say that the Russians are helping us win." For my part I mirror Senator Wyden's position as I think he asks some really good questions about the committee process, arbitrary access to evidence and testimonies, and his mandate to follow the money. In his own words: "The way to compromise people is through money. Donald Trump, had he been an applicant for a national' security position in the U.S. government, would never have obtained even the lowest level security clearance. What's more, no review of his suitability for a clearance would have ignored his finances. It is therefore derelict that the Committee, having set out to conduct an investigation of counterintelligence threats and vulnerabilities, would have failed to scrutinize so much information that would be relevant to any application for a security clearance. This must be the last time that the Committee gives short shrift to this issue." "On a matter of such urgency, one that implicates the national security of the United States and the defense of its democracy, this delay (Re: response to subpoena's for Trump financial records from Mazars) is unacceptable. Congress must therefore pursue additional means to obtain and release financial information, including S. 20, the Presidential Tax Return Bill, which codifies the long-standing practice of presidents and presidential candidates releasing their finances to the public. Congress should also pass legislation that would reveal foreign influence efforts behind financial transactions, such as S.1978, the Corporate Transparency Act, which prevents the use of anonymous shell companies for illicit activities". Some excerpts: COMMITTEE SENSITIVE - RUSSIA INVESTIGATION ONLY (U) The Committee found that Manafort's presence on the Campaign and proximity to Trump created opportunities for Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump Campaign. Taken as a whole, Manafort's highlevel access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services, particularly Kilimnik and associates of Oleg Deripaska, represented a grave counterintelligence threat. Hack and Leak (U) The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president. Moscow's intent was to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process. -WikiLeaks actively sought, and played, a key role in the Russian influen~ery likely knew it was assistin a Russian intelli ence influence effort. The Committee found si nificant indications tha At the time of the first WikiLeaks releases, the U.S. Government had not yet declared WikiLeaks a hostile organization and many treated itas a journalistic entity. (U) While the GRU and WikiLeaks were releasing hacked documents, the Trump Campaign sought to maximize the impact of those leaks to aid Trump's electoral prospects. Staff on the Trump Campaign sought advance notice about WikiLeaks releases, created messaging strategies to promote and share the materials in anticipation of and following thdr release, and encouraged further leaks. The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort. The Committee found no evidence that Campaign officials received an authoritative government notification that the hack was perpetrated by the Russian government before October 7, 2016, when the ODNI and DHS issued a joint statement to that effect. However, the Campaign was aware of the extensive media reporting and other private sector attribution of the hack to Russian actors prior to that point. (U) Trump and senior Campaign officials sought to obtain advance information about WikiLeaks's planned releases through Roger Stone. At their direction, Stone took action to gain inside knowledge for the Campaign and shared his purported knowledge directly with Trump and senior Campaign offictals on multiple occasions. Trump and the Campaign believed that Stone had inside information and expressed satisfaction that Stone's information suggested more releases would be forthcoming. The Committee could not reliably determine the extent.of authentic, non-public knowledge about WikiLeaks that Stone obtained and shared with the Campaign. COMMITTEE SENSITIVE~ RUSSIA INVESTIGATION ONLY The Agalarovs and the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower Meeting (U) The Committee found that the connection between Trump and the Agalarovs began in 2013 with planning for the Miss Universe Moscow pageant. Aras Agalarov is a prominent oligarch in Russia, and his son, Emin Agalarov, is a musician and businessman in Moscow. The connection evolved in 2014 and focused on an effort to build a Trump Tower in Moscow that never came to fruition. During that time communications further extended to Agalarov associates and family members and to Trump associates and family members. The relationship with the Agalarovs, which continued through the 2016 U.S. election, included business and personal communications, in person meetings, and gifts. (U) The Committee found that Aras Agalarov was personally involved in pushing for both the June 9, 2016 meeting between NataliaVeselnitskaya and senior m~mbers of the Campaign and for a second meeting following the election, also with Veselnitskaya, that did not take plac·e. Agalarov likely did this on behalf of individuals affiliated with the Russian government, judging from his ties with Russian officials who have pursued a repeal of the U.S. sanctions under the Magnitsky Act. · · (U) The Committee found evidence suggesting that it was the 'intent of the Campaign · participants in the June 9, 2016 meeting, particularly Dortald Trump Jr., to receive derogatory information that would be of benefit to the Campaign from a soui:ce known, at least by Trump Jr.,. to have connections to the Russian government. The Committee found no reliable evidence that information of benefit to the Campaign was transmitted at the meeting, or that then candidate Trump had foreknowledge of the meeting. Participants on both sides of the meeting were ultimately disappointed with how it transpired. (U) The information that Natalia. Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer, offered during the June 9, 2016 meeting and planned to offer again at the follow up meeting requested by Aras . Agalarov was part of a broader influence operation targeting the United States that was coordinated, at least in part, with elements of the Russian government. That Russian effort was focused on U.S. sanctions against Russia under the Magnitsky Act. The Committee assesses that some of the same information used by Veselnitskaya at the June 9, 2016 meeting was also used in an influence operation earlier in 2016 by individuals in Moscow who have ties to Russian intelligence and to Putin. (U) The Committee assesses that at least two participants in the June 9, 2016 meeting, Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin, have significant connections to the Russian government, including the Russian intelligence services. The connections the Committee uncovered, particularly regarding Veselnitskaya, were far more extensive and concerning than what had been publicly known, and neither Veselnitskaya nor Akhmetshin were forthcoming with the Committee regarding those connections. Both Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin may have sought, in some cases, to obfuscate the true intent of their work in the United States

I think at this point Kent can change the OP title to say "When Trump loses and refuses to leave" I honestly did not want Trump to gracefully concede or show any kind of dignity befitting the office of the US Presidency. I wanted him to live down to the terrible character I had ascribed to him over the years - not disappointed.

I am glad you know what posit means, as I probably read too much and grew up in a family of readers too. I get the "huh?" when I use words or phrases that to me are perfect in a particular context. I do get a fair amount of knuckle-dragging mono-syllabic responses from many of the Trump supporters so admittedly made a wise ass assumption that looked pretty elitist in hindsight. Regardless, I can see why you went there with your comment and that was a justifiable rebuke. This is a multi-faceted discussion with a lot of misinformation floating around so it is surprising that there is less serious discussion - I took the time to comment on the items you posted above. They are either counterpoints or clarifications or one where we align, but likely have different hopes for the outcome. As acceptable sourcing seems to be at the hard to come by regarding qualifying the value of recounts, I did find this one non-partisan site that also links to raw recount data and summary results if you are interested. https://www.fairvote.org/recounts

Actually a good point regarding brevity. However, you said "Auditing the results takes a lot of time and effort. I'm not asking for audited results in 50 states, or any state -- as long as there's no obvious error. But, you see, there ARE errors, and these errors wouldn't have been known if nobody questioned" My rebuttal was that you had a fundamental misunderstanding of state election certification. The certification process itself is an audit of the states election results intended to catch and remedy any errors.

Yet when I contradict posts where someone posits (claims) election fraud because there were random processing or administrative errors I get nothing. Every, I repeat EVERY election that involves millions of votes has a small margin of human error. For the most part these are caught and corrected via each states certification process. But random cases of human error will never stack up and align with claims of systemic fraud, nor be enough leverage to have a court of law throw out thousands of legitimate votes. That is why you fail, because it is a flawed premise not because there is a conspiracy or echo chamber levied against you.

I thought about that too. Rather than coming out with 10 or 11 personnel and signaling to the other team that run is possible or likely where they sub in their run-stopping personnel and abandon their two-deep zone concepts for those that put more men on or near the line of scrimmage, we come out empty and move to a 10 or 11 alignment. It would help if they did this in no-huddle sprints to prevent teams from subbing personnel in or out of the lineup. I would like to see if that forces teams to play their 2-deep zone personnel in a quasi run-stopping alignment which may create some mismatches for the Bills to exploit. What got me thinking about this was how often I saw the Cards easily subbing guys in and out around our running plays. We did catch them once with too many or too little guys on the field, but I think we could catch teams more than that and also exploit those mismatches more.

What errors are you referring to that have been proven in a court of law with real evidence? States are certifying their accurate results in the face of a rash of unfounded criticism and challenges from Trump. These certification processes happen with or without all the drama and questions. Of the few legitimate errors that were found, by the time they had circulated through social media and had been magnified by Trump, they had already been corrected by the normal audit and certification processes the states had in place before they were ever part of an official count. Case in point the idiotic conspiracy around Dominion voting software and Michigan in particular: It is used in states that also reported a Trump win: Louisiana, Iowa, Missouri and Ohio (no challenges there apparently) It was an isolated case of human error in Michigan and not intentional as one county failed forever to apply an update to the system, but what is lost in the conspiracy hue and cry was that the Michigan's internal election verification processes used by their county election boards caught the discrepancy between voting machine results for that county and the Dominion machine tally, corrected it, and reported it proactively BEFORE the official count was tabulated and released. It had absolutely zero impact on their official vote count. Benson explained that while Antrim County did experience a minor election tech issue this week, the GOP’s explanation is highly misleading. For one, local authorities caught and reported the problem early on in the vote tabulating process, so the error was never reflected in the state’s official results. Also, it wasn’t the result of a “glitch” in the software’s programming either, but rather human error of putting off a software update for too long. Apparently, an Antrim County clerk didn’t update the software used to aggregate voting machine data and generate unofficial results, an accidental oversight that caused a miscalculation in the county’s unofficial results. However, she added that existing election safeguards worked as intended and ensured the issue was swiftly corrected before the county submitted its official tally. Here’s how the process actually works: Voters submit their ballots to voting machines that scan and retain them. Once the machines are finished processing these ballots, each one prints out its final tally of votes for each candidate in each race. Officials then aggregate these printed totals using the election management system software. However, since Antrim County dragged its feet on a software update, its version miscalculated when combining these totals, even though each individual voting machine tabulated the ballots correctly. “As with other unofficial results reporting errors, this was an honest mistake and did not affect any actual vote totals,” Benson said. “Election clerks work extremely hard and do their work with integrity. They are human beings, and sometimes make mistakes. However, there are many checks and balances that ensure mistakes can be caught and corrected.” The random administrative errors in the course of casting millions of votes is not proof of fraud. Election fraud is systemic error or malfeasance due to compromised election systems that have the potential to effect a significant number of votes. The former DHS official that Trump jettisoned both knew and attested to the fact that this vote was the most secure in election history and was not influenced by any fraud. If anything, Trump's incessant, groundless tweets about election fraud for months leading up to this election spurred on by what appears to be pretty inaccurate polling, worked against him as it created an environment where every "i" was being dotted and every "t" was crossed and there was a heightened commitment to follow every safeguard and legislative election rule. He inadvertently created the very election integrity that his lawsuits are finding insurmountable. Same with his baseless claims regarding mail in ballots and absentee ballots where the Secretary of State in Georgia said that they saw a significant drop in GOP mail in ballots from what they had seen earlier in the year during the primaries that would have carried him over the line. Basically, he shot himself in the foot by trying to cast doubt on the very normal process of having your ballots delivered via the USPS that is a common or only practice for many states, and all states at least of provisions for absentee ballot processing.

Kubiak noted that the bubble screen off that bunched WR alignment failed because of blocking, but I lean your way on that take. I think the Cards saw through it, did not take the bait of playing that formation like a typical bunch receiving assignment, and ran through and shed blocks to get to the guy that they knew was the intended receiver for the screen pass. Hard to block when the opposing team has diagnosed your play which relies on some trickery to set defenders up so they are in a position to be blocked out of the play.

I noticed, and I am trying to be more nice in my replies so they do not all run away to Parler which to me is about the same as falling into the Q-Anon alternate universe. I have watched interviews with folks who manage to break out of that virtual world and I find there are striking similarities to the kind of withdrawal symptoms you observe from those who manage to leave a cult. It would make for an interesting psychology paper.

In answer to your question - as soon as Florida certified their vote totals he was President Elect. Media has little or nothing to do with this process as they are getting their updates from the Election boards from each state... not a conspiracy and folks can disagree with media projections that jump ahead of state election board results but they are largely based on how many official votes are tallied and how many are left - the math is pretty simple as number of votes casts is known before ballot inspection and processing. This is why the GOP Secretary of State in Georgia who is being crucified by his own party for not "manufacturing" a win in Georgia or throwing out Biden votes as Graham was hinting he should do, pushed back on statements about transparency saying that his election board hosted calls every 2 hours to update everyone including the media on current vote processing status and results. Now if folks want to put an * next to that President Elect title while legal challenges wind their way through courts then that is their prerogative. Calling the winner of the initial results is a normal process that allows for the transition of administration information and personnel role assignments to happen to ensure the country does not lurch into the next administration blindly. Bush v. Gore was a unique situation as it was only one state separated by only a few votes, and I get the sense that folks do not understand the scope of the gap between that situation and the one we have today that has led to the barrage of feckless, wasted legal challenges. Now recounts will happen in close results, or states may have their own mandates to recount or audit their results, or if any legal challenges have merit a recount could happen but precedent has shown that recounts usually only move the needle a few hundred votes so my totals below of the latest 2020 results could move a few hundred one way or the other, but as the point has been hammered over and over, it will not change these results of who won each state. In the case of Bush vs. Gore less that 600 votes stood between the two candidates in the one and only contested swing state for that election. After their machine recount Bush's lead stood at 327 votes. Challenges around wrinkled ballots and incomplete holes being punched in the ballots followed, but did not change the result. In that matter I think Gore actually had margins to victory and legit arguments that Trump wishes he had, but he was not allowed to pursue them as they were outside Florida's existing election law and the Supreme Court ruled that election laws could not be changed post-election. In particular there was the use of a "butterfly" ballot in Palm Beach county that easily mislead Gore voters into accidentally voting for 3rd party candidate Pat Buchanan and an estimated 3700 votes intended for Gore were siphoned away because of that design, but apparently they did not have the means to allow voters to "cure" their ballots as states like PA currently have. The 2020 Election Current Gaps in Swing States: GA: Biden by 12,655 AZ: Biden by 10,457 NV: Biden by 33,596 WI: Biden by 20,608 PA: Biden by 82,353 FL: Trump by 371,686 GA: Biden by 14,007 MI: Biden by 155,629 So Bush vs. Gore was a wholly different situation from the 2020 election and the delay then in the transition process led to a country that was not prepared for the next administration and that fact was considered one of the reasons our country's intelligence and security agencies were caught with their pants down during 911 according to government sanctioned reports reviewing the systemic failures leading up to that tragedy. Everyone that studies and understands our electoral process knows that the clock begins ticking down on any challenges of the initial results as they are moot once all the states certify their election results and the Electoral College casts their votes. After that, the electoral college votes are counted and the official President Elect is sworn in as President. There is nothing unusual about this election, it is a classic loss for Trump. The only thing unusual about this election is that Trump is not conceding a clear loss and seeks to employ disinformation and conspiracy theories that predictably fall dead in court. These challenges fail in court not because of a lack of legal skill, but because unlike Twitter or news conferences, courts require evidence. There is none, courtrooms in swing states are where Trump challenges lacking evidence go to die. That is a significant and key misunderstanding that many Trump supporters do not quite get. They fail, because they do not have evidence, or the evidence presented lacks merit. And unlike social media, lawyers cannot lie to a judge in a court room where they are sworn in without suffering consequences. Team Trump is having trouble finding competent lawyers, or keeping them, because competent lawyers and law firms know what most of the Trump supporters refuse to acknowledge Trump legitimately lost and evidence to the contrary does not exist. There are provisions for a very tight electoral vote where when parties cannot agree the succession is laid out in the constitution, but this loss does not resemble a close loss in regards to the number of swing states Trump lost, nor by the margins by which he lost. Also, if it were down to a single swing state and a handful of votes with illegible scribbles on them and the parties could not agree, then the succession still would not be Trump.

Folks forget how this team and Allen struggled to move the ball downfield against the better defenses running 2-deep zones with good 4-man fronts. Being effective running the football does not take away from your passing game it enhances it by pulling those deep safeties back into the box, helps cut down on the costly interceptions throwing into double coverage, and slows down the rush giving Allen more time in the pocket. It can also be a more strategic approach late in a game when our defense is struggling to stop an opposing team and we need our offense to maintain possession, grind out 1st downs, and run out the clock. How many times have we seen our offense up several scores in a game, then start sputtering with 3 and out passing late in the game, taking little time off the clock, and the opposing team starts scoring at will against our D closing the gap? An effective rushing attack would certainly come in handy to curb those situations. Sure we moved the ball passing against the Seahawks, but they have a historically bad defense - particularly their secondary and chose to play man and blitz a ton. We moved the ball against the Cards, but had costly turnovers throwing into coverage. Having a more balanced rushing attack will only benefit this team. You don't get points or wins from your offense just being "fun" to watch, they have to be more than one-dimensional to respond to different defensive looks, personnel, and game situations.

I think you proved my point regarding critical thinking being a requirement for those absorbing what passes for news and journalism these days. Being critical of the press and fact-checking does not make them "the enemy", nor is friction with our leaders a new thing in this democracy. I believe that at one point Thomas Jefferson railed against the press. But politicians hate the press because they often shine the public light on the things politicians would prefer to keep in the dark. They are a necessity for a democracy to keep governments in check. Social media now blurs that "news" line with tweets and posts from influential sources that are passed along as if they are actually vetted news material. It's a mixed bag, but know and understand the source and do your own vetting. It is a buyer beware environment. There are defamation laws that apply to social media, and considering the sheer volume of falsehoods tweeted out I am surprised we do not see more high profile lawsuits. One cannot simply hide behind "it was my opinion", or maybe it's because this is fairly recent legal territory where there is a lack of precedent...not sure. I have always held the opinion that journalist who are great interviewers are not necessarily combative, but they do not shy away or sugar-coat the tough questions. Some like Woodward cozy up and get leaders to say things they should never admit to in passing and certainly not on tape. It is like he ooozes some kind of truth serum instead of questions. If a controversial figure is worth interviewing, it is worth making them a bit uncomfortable.

Just trying to caution against using blanket phrases like, "there is not a sane person among you" and your hatred is "blinding all of you". An easy way to lose credibility, or any debate, or your intended audience is to target others with accusations that include or imply "always", "everyone", "never", etc.. You learn these things when you go to counseling with an angry teenager. Sure there are polar rants here, but the invitation is open too for some folks that share in this forum if they have the capacity and willingness to debate the points and merits of their positions rather than just slinging mud... I take the mud slinging with a grain of salt because there are times it is just funny.

ok....... thanks for stopping by, I guess - and posting your "sane" rant with its blanket statements. There's irony in this somewhere, if I just look hard enough. Calm down everybody!!!

Mahomes has turned out to be a fantastic QB, and I know that there are folks on TBD who lobbied and hoped the Bills would pick him. You have to move on and if one is honest they would admit that not every draft crush they have pans out. I wanted the Bills to take someone last year and was pretty irritated that they did not make a move for him, but that guy ended up on IR two years in a row. Maybe things would have worked out different here, but you just never know. I think it is safe to say that we have a pretty special QB in Allen who definitely has not hit his ceiling yet. It is both amazing and at times frustrating watching him mature before our eyes, but one thing I can say for certain is that he has some really rare ability. I generally do not feel that the Bills are out of a game with Allen back there and he has made watching a Bills offense exciting again. Allen has had a pretty tough season considering he has not really had a complimentary running game to speak of for most of it. This team desperately needed this bye week.

First name is actually "Joe"

OMG ...that. was. Awesome. Needed the laugh.