If Trump loses and refuses to leave

[jrober38]

5 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

My question was — why does the human error only favor Biden. It isn’t a smattering when you’re talking about tens of thousands in concentrated districts.  My question wasn’t a statement about pushing Trump over the top. In fact I’ve said this in repeated posts so people don’t get my intentions wrong (this is also a response to @jrober38). And the human error in Georgia was withholding the votes that favored trump (a result which favors Biden). So my theory remains intact. 

 

 

Probably because Trump lost and they're actively looking for errors that may have helped him.

 

No one is out there reporting on or looking for more votes for Biden, because he doesn't need them. 

 

GOP officials are actively trying to make it look like the election was rigged, which is why they're only covering one side of the story here. 

For the most part, these people are posting stuff on twitter, actual reporters look into it and question election officials, and the election officials explain that the issues have already been dealt with.

GOP conspiracy theorists who are trying to shake the hornets nest are never going to bring up examples of errors going for Trump because that doesn't line up with the agenda they're working on. 

Edited November 19, 2020 by jrober38

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

My question was — why does the human error only favor Biden. It isn’t a smattering when you’re talking about tens of thousands in concentrated districts.  My question wasn’t a statement about pushing Trump over the top. In fact I’ve said this in repeated posts so people don’t get my intentions wrong (this is also a response to @jrober38). And the human error in Georgia was withholding the votes that favored trump (a result which favors Biden). So my theory remains intact. 

 

Assuming your contention is correct, which I challenge, it would likely have to do with more legal mail in ballots sent by Democrats because they were concerned about the Coronavirus.

[TBBills]

11 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Assuming your contention is correct, which I challenge, it would likely have to do with more legal mail in ballots sent by Democrats because they were concerned about the Coronavirus.

That and Trump specifically said "Do not use mail in ballots" to his followers many times. He was hoping he could force them to be illegal but the court system prevails.

[jrober38]

Just now, TBBills said:

That and Trump specifically said "Do not use mail in ballots" to his followers many times. He was hoping he could force them to be illegal but the court system prevails.

 

Trump had states not count mail in ballots until after day of ballots because if they had, the election would have been called against him by 10 pm on election night and it would have eliminated his opportunity to whine and moan for 3+ weeks and keep raising money for the future. 

 

This was all done intentionally to undermine the election and make Trump's supporters think he was screwed. If they'd have just allowed absentee votes to be counted as they came in, no one would think it was rigged. 

[snafu]

21 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Assuming your contention is correct, which I challenge, it would likely have to do with more legal mail in ballots sent by Democrats because they were concerned about the Coronavirus.

 

It wasn’t a contention as much as it is a question. 

And I don’t think the volume of mail in ballots is an issue. States had days/weeks to get their counts right. Georgia would never have counted those “misplaced” ballots if there wasn’t a recount that the R Secretary of State initially resisted. Now the difference between the two is extremely slim. I know that trump needs more than one state, but that’s not my point. 

 

Go go back to my first post this morning. I was asking the question because it seems that every time someone looks under the rocks, there seems to be some credibility for looking under the rocks. Dismissing the call to investigate out-of-hand is just as much a threat to our democracy as anything else.  I’m just saying, everyone should let the facts and process play out.

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, shoshin said:

 

Can you provide a link for this, because I can provide you a link to some of the things Trump's lead attorney (who hadn't appeared in federal court in almost 30 years) said yesterday in the Circuit Court in PA that would contradict that. 

Sure, here are two:

 

https://www.federalappeals.com/attorneys/sidney-powell/

https://www.linwoodlaw.com/attorney/l-lin-wood/

[shoshin]

50 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

My question was — why does the human error only favor Biden. It isn’t a smattering when you’re talking about tens of thousands in concentrated districts.  My question wasn’t a statement about pushing Trump over the top. In fact I’ve said this in repeated posts so people don’t get my intentions wrong (this is also a response to @jrober38). And the human error in Georgia was withholding the votes that favored trump (a result which favors Biden). So my theory remains intact. 

 

 

The errors alleged in Wayne County were present in the neighboring counties (Trump counties). This came up in court yesterday or the day before--of course Trump attorneys don't want to recount those counties for ANY reason because that would ruin the narrative that only errors arise in Biden counties.

 

The Trump attorneys are only challenging votes where there are predominantly Biden votes, and they are finding vote errors amounting to hundreds of votes, AT BEST, yet he's lost by multi-tens of thousands in most states. 

 

Even the hanging chad recount barely found enough errors to move a fart across a room. 

9 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Sure, here are two:

 

https://www.federalappeals.com/attorneys/sidney-powell/

https://www.linwoodlaw.com/attorney/l-lin-wood/

 

Ms. Powell's most recent appellate decision, according to that, is 2006. More recent than Giuliani's Circuit Court appearance before yesterday, I'll give you that. 

Edited November 19, 2020 by shoshin

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

3 hours ago, Kemp said:

 

The difference then was that it concerned hundreds of votes in one state, not thousands,  not tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands in multiple states.

 

Gore didn't claim that every state he lost was because it was a crooked election. Gore didn't say before the election that the only way he could lose was if it was rigged.

 

Pretty simple stuff.

 

 

Sometimes, we have an opportunity to find some common ground.  It requires some introspection and willingness to apply common sense to a subject.  I'll give it a try here:

 

The original knock on my position was that I called Biden the media President.  Multiple people took issue with that characterization, and you posted on that topic.  You asked me some questions specifically about the treatment Biden received relative to other presidents.  I went back 20 years, referenced Bush v Gore, and linked a news article from the NYT dated 11/27/2000.  That was 20 days after the election, and one day after Florida officials publicly declared Bush the winner of the state.   Here's another swing at it:

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/26/politics/bush-is-declared-winner-in-florida-but-gore-vows-to-contest-results.html

 

In this case, the Times acknowledges the results of Florida's certification process, giving W Bush 271 EC votes.  As I said yesterday, partisanship aside, and recognizing the unofficial nature of the term "President-Elect", George W Bush was THE President-Elect.  It's not debatable.  At the risk of repeating myself, had Gore been successful in his challenge, George W Bush would have no longer been President-Elect.  

 

I acknowledge your  comments regarding the nature of Gore's complaint-which were largely impotent, but that doesn't change anything with respect to the concept of President-Elect.  

 

Here's my question for you--are you willing to set your hostility aside for a bit and answer the question---was George W Bush the "President-Elect' as commonly used in media publications when Florida certified their election and gave him the 271 EC votes?   

 

I'll ask @WideNine, @jrober38 and @shoshin the same question. Updated to include @oldmanfan to the list.  I can’t be accused of discriminating against the elderly. 
 

 

34 minutes ago, shoshin said:

 

The errors alleged in Wayne County were present in the neighboring counties (Trump counties). This came up in court yesterday or the day before--of course Trump attorneys don't want to recount those counties for ANY reason because that would ruin the narrative that only errors arise in Biden counties.

 

The Trump attorneys are only challenging votes where there are predominantly Biden votes, and they are finding vote errors amounting to hundreds of votes, AT BEST, yet he's lost by multi-tens of thousands in most states. 

 

Even the hanging chad recount barely found enough errors to move a fart across a room. 

 

Ms. Powell's most recent appellate decision, according to that, is 2006. More recent than Giuliani's Circuit Court appearance before yesterday, I'll give you that. 

Oh Shohsy, I get it. DJT has one lawyer and no one on his team that has any legal skill.  They should have tried to get that guy who won that Sandman kid all that money. 

Edited November 19, 2020 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[jrober38]

7 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Oh Shohsy, I get it. DJT has one lawyer and no one on his team that has any legal skill.  They should have tried to get that guy who won that Sandman kid all that money. 

 

His lawyers are 1-28 in court so far, so yeah, that sounds about right. 

[oldmanfan]

42 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

It wasn’t a contention as much as it is a question. 

And I don’t think the volume of mail in ballots is an issue. States had days/weeks to get their counts right. Georgia would never have counted those “misplaced” ballots if there wasn’t a recount that the R Secretary of State initially resisted. Now the difference between the two is extremely slim. I know that trump needs more than one state, but that’s not my point. 

 

Go go back to my first post this morning. I was asking the question because it seems that every time someone looks under the rocks, there seems to be some credibility for looking under the rocks. Dismissing the call to investigate out-of-hand is just as much a threat to our democracy as anything else.  I’m just saying, everyone should let the facts and process play out.

 

The process is playing out.  All the states will certify their votes, they will show that the President-elect is in fact the President-elect.  The process that is not, in fact, process, is the losing candidate filing lawsuit after lawsuit with no justification, and not allowing the President-elect access to information he needs to ensure proper hand off of government.

 

It is time for all, including the most ardent Trump supporter, to realize that what they are doing is the equivalent of coddling a misbehaving child,  Rather than trying to reason with a spoiled brat, you tell him the way things are going to be.  We are where we are right now because we have a spoiled brat instead of a functioning adult in the white House for a few more weeks.

 

 

Edited November 19, 2020 by oldmanfan

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

3 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

His lawyers are 1-28 in court so far, so yeah, that sounds about right. 

It would be the height of foolishness to suggest that Al Gore didn’t have excellent representation during the failed attempt to win the presidency through the legal decree in 2000.  I’m not that foolish. 
 

The narrative here has been DJT has one lawyer and it’s Rudy Giuliani.  Hop on the train if you like, it makes you appear no less foolish than those who are pushing the narrative.  

[oldmanfan]

Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

It would be the height of foolishness to suggest that Al Gore didn’t have excellent representation during the failed attempt to win the presidency through the legal decree in 2000.  I’m not that foolish. 
 

The narrative here has been DJT has one lawyer and it’s Rudy Giuliani.  Hop on the train if you like, it makes you appear no less foolish than those who are pushing the narrative.  

But he has had a number of lawyers and firms back out, I believe.  And he put Giuliani in charge.  Those are just facts.

[jrober38]

3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

It would be the height of foolishness to suggest that Al Gore didn’t have excellent representation during the failed attempt to win the presidency through the legal decree in 2000.  I’m not that foolish. 
 

The narrative here has been DJT has one lawyer and it’s Rudy Giuliani.  Hop on the train if you like, it makes you appear no less foolish than those who are pushing the narrative.  

 

Al Gore contested an election that he lost by 500 votes.

Trump is contesting a handful of races that he lost by 10k-100k+ votes. 

 

His lawyers have dropped like flies because they have no case. They're unwilling to take cases that have no hope of being successful.

Rudy had to apply for emergency admittance to the Bar in PA because Trump didn't have any other lawyers there willing to take the case on Tuesday. He's the only grifter left willing to take donor's money and take up the losing legal battle. 

 

Those are the facts. You don't have to like them, but nothing I said is untrue. 

Edited November 19, 2020 by jrober38

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

But he has had a number of lawyers and firms back out, I believe.  And he put Giuliani in charge.  Those are just facts.

How does that change what I said?  I'm open to any reasonable reply. 

[oldmanfan]

Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

How does that change what I said?  I'm open to any reasonable reply. 

I believe your premise is that Trump has a lot of good lawyers on his team.  It would appear many have backed out, and I would seriously question any description of Giuliani as a good lawyer at this point.,

[jrober38]

4 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I believe your premise is that Trump has a lot of good lawyers on his team.  It would appear many have backed out, and I would seriously question any description of Giuliani as a good lawyer at this point.,

 

If Trump had a lot of good lawyers working for him, he wouldn't need to have Guiliani applying for emergency admittance to the PA Bar so that he can argue in Federal Court there.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I believe your premise is that Trump has a lot of good lawyers on his team.  It would appear many have backed out, and I would seriously question any description of Giuliani as a good lawyer at this point.,

You don't have to speculate, I was clear on what I said and who I consider a significant member of his team.  

 

As for those who chose not to continue, I personally believe that it's a mistake to assume they moved on simply because of the merits of the/a case.  That's certainly a possibility. However, based on the level of hatred and death threats leveled at participants, it's certainly a possibility that folks withdrew due to fear of retaliation and treats to them or their family.  It's a cottage industry these days. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

19 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

The process is playing out.  All the states will certify their votes, they will show that the President-elect is in fact the President-elect.  The process that is not, in fact, process, is the losing candidate filing lawsuit after lawsuit with no justification, and not allowing the President-elect access to information he needs to ensure proper hand off of government.

 

It is time for all, including the most ardent Trump supporter, to realize that what they are doing is the equivalent of coddling a misbehaving child,  Rather than trying to reason with a spoiled brat, you tell him the way things are going to be.  We are where we are right now because we have a spoiled brat instead of a functioning adult in the white House for a few more weeks.

 

 

Interesting.  We went from being compelled to submit because the very nature of our republic is at stake, to being compelled to submit because we are coddling a misbehaving child.  Powerful stuff. 

 

The solution according to OMF---surrender your rights.  comply, and let's get the functioning adult who triumphed over a stutter and his opponent George Bush. 

 

It's incredibly presumptuous to presume you have any right to ask me to get behind you in line.  I decline. 

 

[oldmanfan]

7 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Interesting.  We went from being compelled to submit because the very nature of our republic is at stake, to being compelled to submit because we are coddling a misbehaving child.  Powerful stuff. 

 

The solution according to OMF---surrender your rights.  comply, and let's get the functioning adult who triumphed over a stutter and his opponent George Bush. 

 

It's incredibly presumptuous to presume you have any right to ask me to get behind you in line.  I decline. 

 

What is the difference between this election and those in the past, even closer elections in both the popular vote and the Electoral college?

 

One person.  One child really who sits in the White House spewing out nonsensical tweets about how he won an election he clearly lost.   I have not asked anyone to surrender his rights - if this child wants to continue to act like a child and waste all the money that suckers (real suckers, not the ones he claimed served our country with honor) send to him more power to him.  But it is time for the ascertainment function to proceed so the incoming administration can get up to speed.  It is time for the Republicans to state this, as they would under opposite circumstances if it were a Democratic child throwing a tantrum.  It is time for an orderly transition of government to begin so the new administration is fully ready to face the domestic and foreign challenges it will face on January 20th.

 

If, through some bizarre upheaval of the space-time continuum and/or theft of the election, the current child maintains office, no harm will have been done by letting the process start now. 

[Buftex]

2 hours ago, shoshin said:

 

Proof of fraud remains with the people making the allegations. So far 0-fer-78 million votes and counting. 

 

At best they have found a few hundred errors, and it's not even clear they benefitted Trump vs. Biden. 

 

I thought Trump had a shot at winning. I can't believe Trumpers are su surprised that Biden won. It was close. You win some, you lose some. In all my presidential votes cast, this is the first time I voted for the guy who won, and although I've never wanted the guy who won before, I've always acknowledged his victory. And many times, the election was a lot closer than this one. Trump just has cast quite a spell on America, both over those that support him and those that oppose him. He IS the danger of populism.

It may not be a landslide, but it isn't really close.