You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
W
whatistrue
Guest
Well if Trump and Company ever come up with a credible allegation of fraud, then it should be looked at. So far they have failed at that threshold over 30 times in court. It is past time to put up or shut up.The closest is looking at all credible allegations of fraud and demonstrating these are false.
You really think that putting yourself forward as the very best person available to hold the office of President of the United States of America doesn’t require a large ego? I don’t know what to say to that; I would have thought it self-evident. Selfless and humble are not synonymous.I disagree with the idea you have to have a big ego to be president
K
Kei
Guest
State supreme court=/=Supreme Court of the United StatesIt already did.
In other words, if they intend to allege fraud, no court has looked at their evidence for it, and so no one truly knows how strong their evidence for it would be (except themselves).You do realize that in none of the 34 cases they’ve lost have they alleged fraud. NOT ONE.
Last edited:
K
Kei
Guest
This is why I am saying it is best to suspend judgment until it’s all done. They haven’t brought a fraud case to the courts yet.Well if Trump and Company ever come up with a credible allegation of fraud, then it should be looked at. So far they have failed at that threshold over 30 times in court. It is past time to put up or shut up.
You don’t have to think you’re the best for the job to run for president, just better than those who are running.
Last edited:
1
1ke
Guest
They appealed it to the SCOTUS. They were not successful.State supreme court=/=Supreme Court of the United States
W
whatistrue
Guest
Still indicates a large ego.You don’t have to think you’re the best for the job to run for president, just better than those who are running.
1
1ke
Guest
No. Not true. They have stated, in court, that they are NOT alleging fraud.In other words, if they intend to allege fraud, no court has looked at their evidence for it
There is no evidence of fraud. They haven’t filed any court cases alleging fraud. They speak of fraud ONLY in press conferences, on Twitter, and You Tube.and so no one truly knows how strong their evidence for it would be (except themselves).
When they go to court, they DO NOT assert any fraud.
K
Kei
Guest
This may depend on the city/state but ballots without signiature or eligible voter info can be challenged. In PA a mismatched signiature isn’t enough, but combined with ie a wrong address it can cause a ballot to be reviewed. Election officials have the notoriously difficult job of making sure a signiature matches in about 5 seconds, as opposed to many minutes or even hours you may normally be given to match signiatures. Surely an observer can point out to an official that x ballot looked like it had y and z wrong with it, no?He won’t say it in court, because he knows observers can’t challenge ballots.
Last edited:
K
Kei
Guest
That’s my point! They have not alleged fraud yet, so if they intend to do so, we do not know what the case will look like.They have stated, in court, that they are NOT alleging fraud.
I also do not see where SCOTUS denied the appeal
Last edited:
K
Kei
Guest
That really depends on how bad the other candidates are.Still indicates a large ego.
W
whatistrue
Guest
Sorry, that makes no sense. One either believes that he/she is that much better than the rest (whoever the rest are) or one doesn’t. “Does” implies large ego.
K
Kei
Guest
I don’t see how this implies a large ego. If it takes a large ego to act to help the American people against terrible candidates (in our hypothetical scenario) to have someone who truly represents the American people, then I guess a large ego ain’t such a bad thing.
But being a president or any elected official in America is about being representative of the American people, and what they want in policy. It doesn’t mean you’re super smart or handsome.
But being a president or any elected official in America is about being representative of the American people, and what they want in policy. It doesn’t mean you’re super smart or handsome.
Last edited:
1
1ke
Guest
Not by the election observers.This may depend on the city/state but ballots without signiature or eligible voter info can be challenged.
Challenges come from a different group.
1
1ke
Guest
NoSurely an observer can point out to an official that x ballot looked like it had y and z wrong with it, no?
1234567890
K
Kei
Guest
So they have no ability to point out sketchy things to an official group? Their existence is just superfluous, is what you’re saying?
W
whatistrue
Guest
If either of those were required, then we would never have gotten our current President.It doesn’t mean you’re super smart or handsome.
I suspect we may be having a definitional issue. Large ego does not necessarily go to the extreme of narcissist or megalomaniac, just that you have a better opinion of your own skills and abilities than you do of other’s.If it takes a large ego to act to help the American people against terrible candidates (in our hypothetical scenario) to have someone who truly represents the American people, then I guess a large ego ain’t such a bad thing.
1
1ke
Guest
And yet, it’s your claim we should “wait” until the fraud cases are decided.That’s my point! They have not alleged fraud yet, so if they intend to do so, we do not know what the case will look like.
THERE ARE NO FRAUD CASES.
Ergo, I guess there is nothing to “wait” for.
K
Kei
Guest
I will resist the temptation to make a joke about the president and resist commenting on that. Rest assured, though, it would have been very funny, at least I certainly think so!
Then I guess we do have a difference of definition here. I mean, by this definition, doesn’t most everyone have a large ego unless you really think you’re the worst. I think most normal people don’t think themselves the best, but not the worst either.I suspect we may be having a definitional issue. Large ego does not necessarily go to the extreme of narcissist or megalomaniac, just that you have a better opinion of your own skills and abilities than you do of other’s.
K
Kei
Guest
So, you’re saying there are no new cases that will be made, and you’re certain of this fact? I think we should wait for any cases that can change the results either cumulatively or stand-alone.And yet, it’s your claim we should “wait” until the fraud cases are decided.
THERE ARE NO FRAUD CASES.
Ergo, I guess there is nothing to “wait” for.
Last edited:
W
whatistrue
Guest
No. Large ego means thinking your skills/abilities are best or among the best. Most people think they are more or less average, which is definitely not the worst.I mean, by this definition, doesn’t most everyone have a large ego unless you really think you’re the worst.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.