Trump Massive Rally in Washington DC (Nov. 14th) (Tens of Thousands Gather)

[HarryStotle]

gam197:

If the results(audit) came back that everything was legitimate, the 74 million Trump voters would accept it. It would be over.

Do you really think all Trump voters can’t accept the results of a free and fair election just because their guy lost?

Has it been established that the election was free and fair? How would that be done precisely?

Taking your word for it? Your detailed assessment of all evidence that you conducted when, exactly?

Would it mean not actually looking into any evidence at all to determine for certain if it was free and fair?

Or should we just presume that it was free and fair without any evidence that it was actually free and fair? Just trust those who say it was?

No evidence?

How could we possibly determine that there is no evidence when all attempts at producing it are dismissed a priori by those in your political camp?

Furthermore, how could we reveal evidence when the large bulk of it is in the hands of those who had the means of committing the fraud — you know those we are not allowed to investigate to begin with?

 

[LilyM]

gam197:

If the results(audit) came back that everything was legitimate, the 74 million Trump voters would accept it. It would be over.

Do you really think all Trump voters can’t accept the results of a free and fair election just because their guy lost?

Well the problems being discussed now do not appear to be unique to this election cycle, nor unique to one side of politics. The fact that they were quiet when their candidate won in 2016, despite what appears to be an equal chance of that result being obtained by fraud, says something about their likely motives.

 

[billsherman]

How could we possibly determine that there is no evidence when all attempts at producing it are dismissed a priori by those in your political camp?

The problem is not the Democrats, but the courts.

So far every attempt to show evidence has failed. Sometimes spectacularly.

No one would expect Democrats to be anything less than incredulous, but the courts are vastly more impartial. And yes, even conservative judges have rejected Trump’s claims.

As I said above, I am 100% certain that none of these cases will be heard by the Supreme Court. There is no reason for them to hear these cases, as no evidence has been presented.

 

[LilyM]

PaulinVA:

gam197:

If the results(audit) came back that everything was legitimate, the 74 million Trump voters would accept it. It would be over.

Do you really think all Trump voters can’t accept the results of a free and fair election just because their guy lost?

Has it been established that the election was free and fair? How would that be done precisely?

Taking your word for it? Your detailed assessment of all evidence that you conducted when, exactly?

Would it mean not actually looking into an evidence at all to determine for certain if it was free and fair?

Or should we just presume that it was free and fair without any evidence that it was actually free and fair? Just trust those who say it was?

No evidence?

How could we possibly determine that there is no evidence when all attempts at producing it are dismissed a priori by those in your political camp?

Furthermore, how could we reveal evidence when the large bulk of it is in the hands of those who had the means of committing the fraud — you know those we are not allowed to investigate to begin with?

I already responded to this previously, which you appear to have ignored. Two words - subpoenas and disclosure. Courts and some non-court government organisations have the power to compel the production of information. I do not doubt that they can do so in cases where electoral fraud is being alleged.

 

[HarryStotle]

I already responded to this previously, which you appear to have ignored. Two words - subpoenas and disclosure. Courts and some non-court government organisations have the power to compel the production of information. I do not doubt that they can do so in cases where electoral fraud is being alleged.

And that is precisely what the lawyers for various Republican causes are doing. So why the constant chirping about “no evidence” from the crowd here when that is precisely what is being sought by the lawsuits.

By the way, Floyd County Georgia just found 2,600 additional ballots during audit. Floyd County has under 97,000 residents, so 2600 votes is a good portion (4.5%) of the total number of ballots cast (~59,690 residents are registered to vote). Trump net gained about 800 (1700 to 900).

Edit: Around 31, 000 have voted to date. 8.8% of votes were not counted.

How well-run was an election process in that county that could be out by 2600 (8.8%) votes?

Another one off? Maybe.

Also, note that Stacey Abrams still does consider herself to be governor of Georgia. Seriously.

Stacey Abrams | For One Georgia

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

This is the woman who wants a free and fair election but still contends the 2016 election.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Have any proof of it, or is it just your preconceived opinion?

The Hill even reported on it in 2016.

Social media is big media?

 

[AlNg]

Do you really think all Trump voters can’t accept the results of a free and fair election just because their guy lost?

The problem is that there are allegations that the 2020 presidential election was not free and fair. For example, President Trump has said that the election was rigged.

 

[HarryStotle]

gam197:

If the results(audit) came back that everything was legitimate, the 74 million Trump voters would accept it. It would be over.

Do you really think all Trump voters can’t accept the results of a free and fair election just because their guy lost?

Cf. Stacey Abrams — my last post

What happened to “Not My President” protests and feast day from 2017?

Not My Presidents Day - Wikipedia

Then Russia Collusion without evidence and the Impeachment debacle?

Tit for tat. Your side started it four years ago.

Precedent.

Never mind… I forgot you are independently minded.

I suppose what threw me off was the fact that you only mentioned one side in your “can’t accept the results of a free and fair election” observation.

 

[HarryStotle]

Gorgias:

Have any proof of it, or is it just your preconceived opinion?

The Hill even reported on it in 2016.

Social media is big media?

Perhaps you can rephrase your question?

Do you mean social media is not media or not big?

 

[gam197]

PaulinVA:

gam197:

If the results(audit) came back that everything was legitimate, the 74 million Trump voters would accept it. It would be over.

Do you really think all Trump voters can’t accept the results of a free and fair election just because their guy lost?

Well the problems being discussed now do not appear to be unique to this election cycle, nor unique to one side of politics. The fact that they were quiet when their candidate won in 2016, despite what appears to be an equal chance of that result being obtained by fraud, says something about their likely motives.

Election fraud has always been there. The onslaught of millions of new voters and mail-in ballots raised more issues.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

The Fifteenth Amendment "does not explicitly grant anyone the right to vote. Instead, it prohibits federal and state governments from placing restrictions on voting based on three criteria which it does spell out as the reasons the government is not permitted to “abridge” a right to vote…

If the states can’t abridge the right to vote under certain reasons, there is a right to vote preexisting.

Only if there is a vote that a right to vote can’t be abridged. No vote, no abridgement.

State constitutions might ensure a right to vote but the Constitution itself does not. It sets out the stipulation that any vote within the state jurisdiction cannot be abridged by those three criteria. The Constitution says nothing about a right to vote. It does guarantee equal rights though so unfair application of rights might be a factor in deciding how elections are run. For example, equal treatment.

Just be aware that several lawsuits in Georgia and Pennsylvania are using this as grounds for possibly nullifying the election in states and counties where some precincts or counties were afforded “opportunities” to vote or cast ballots not fairly accorded to those in other precincts or counties. This could be determinative. You probably haven’t heard anything about that, though.

 

[gam197]

billsherman:

HarryStotle:

The Fifteenth Amendment "does not explicitly grant anyone the right to vote. Instead, it prohibits federal and state governments from placing restrictions on voting based on three criteria which it does spell out as the reasons the government is not permitted to “abridge” a right to vote…

If the states can’t abridge the right to vote under certain reasons, there is a right to vote preexisting.

Only if there is a vote that a right to vote can’t be abridged. No vote, no abridgement.

State constitutions might ensure a right to vote but the Constitution itself does not. It sets out the stipulation that any vote within the state jurisdiction cannot be abridged by those three criteria. The Constitution says nothing about a right to vote. It does guarantee equal rights though so unfair application of rights might be a factor in deciding how elections are run. For example, equal treatment.

Just be aware that several lawsuits in Georgia and Pennsylvania are using this as grounds for possibly nullifying the election in states and counties where some precincts or counties were afforded “opportunities” to vote or cast ballots not fairly accorded to those in other precincts or counties. This could be determinative. You probably haven’t heard anything about that, though.

Now 1400 new votes for Trump out of 2600 because of a memory card issue.

Georgia recount: Newly found votes in Floyd County could benefit Trump.

Georgia over 2,600 votes were not counted due to a server error, allegedly by a Dominion tabulating machine .

 

[Nepperhan]

The Dem Party is pushing for non-citizen voting and open borders. I don’t think that will turn out well for the country even if it does benefit the Dem Party short term.

Could you please cite who favors this? I have heard no one come out for such notions.

It is the Democratic party, by the way. Anything else is a slur and out of bounds on the forum.

 

[PaulinVA]

The problem is that there are allegations that the 2020 presidential election was not free and fair. For example, President Trump has said that the election was rigged.

I assume this is a joke. He said the election was rigged months ago, when polling indicated he would lose.

Come on, people. The default for American elections is that they were free and fair. If someone has a reason to believe they weren’t, then bring the credible evidence to court. So far, there is none.

Once again, Trump said the election was rigged, so all these people fanned out across the county to “observe” balloting and counting hoping they’d be the hero who would find the smoking gun to give Trump a second term. All they came up with was a bunch of stories and innuendo and narratives that showed they didn’t know what they were talking about.

The premise that both Democratic and Republican elections officials where all conspiring to steal the election from Trump in plain view of observers is laughable.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

The Dem Party is pushing for non-citizen voting and open borders. I don’t think that will turn out well for the country even if it does benefit the Dem Party short term.

Could you please cite who favors this? I have heard no one come out for such notions.

It is the Democratic party, by the way. Anything else is a slur and out of bounds on the forum.

Read the Immigration Platform of the Democrat Party.

https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/creating-a-21st-century-immigration-system/

What precisely are the parameters for not permitting entry into the United States? There are none specified. That implies “inclusion” means there is effectively no exclusion because none are specified.

The UN Global Pact effectively makes migration a human right.

UN Global Pact Vows To Open Borders, Make Migration a 'Human Right'

Biden is a supporter of UN policies. He is mum on global migration, but he did say he wouldn’t reveal many policies until after he is elected.

 

[gam197]

AlNg:

The problem is that there are allegations that the 2020 presidential election was not free and fair. For example, President Trump has said that the election was rigged.

I assume this is a joke. He said the election was rigged months ago, when polling indicated he would lose.

Trump said they rigged the election months ago probably shortly after Covid because the request for mail-in ballots was way off the charts. Voter numbers from 2016 were not adding up so they knew this election had the potential for massive fraud.

 

[Nepperhan]

Read the Immigration Platform of the Democrat Party.

That’s a long way from open borders and allowing aliens to vote.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Since when is the use of Dem Party a slur?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Perhaps you can rephrase your question?

Do you mean social media is not media or not big ?

Neither. I’m familiar with “Big Media” as an idiom for newspaper, TV, and radio. AKA “Mainstream Media.”

 

[HarryStotle]

The premise that both Democratic and Republican elections officials where all conspiring to steal the election from Trump in plain view of observers is laughable.

Not quite as laughable as you suppose, although Crowder is a comedian.

There is evidence that we do not know about, but bits are coming out.