Again with the standard being enough fraud to cast doubts on the outcome of an election, no judge is going to say there is enough to overturn a election and call for a revote regardless of how much fraud is demonstrated. You say that any judge would overturn an election result if there was enough fraud or simply doubt for that matter (as in the case of Florida years ago Bush / Gore) demonstrated and call for a revote. I disagree.
Just how would a state wide revote work for a presidential election ? Would it just be for the presidential vote or all votes ? This is a germane question.
It is totally impractical and undo-able and that is my point.
"We've got lots of theories, we just don't have the evidence."
Kurt, Trump's legal team filed something like 63 court cases in multiple states. Multiple judges presiding over those cases rejected almost every case presented for lack of evidence. Trump's team won one case which got overturned on appeal.
Do you seriously expect us to believe that all those judges secretly conspired to ignore valid claims and solid evidence because new elections would've been "too hard"?
Multiple groups outside of the courts examined the claims and found they had no merit. Bill Barr, Trump's AG, found that the election was free and fair.
You admitted that Trump lost the election. Come out of your sofa cushion fort and stop spouting factless conspiracy bullshit.
The bolded makes my point as far as I am concerned.
Your stupefying propensity to ignore everything and anything that negates or even casts doubt upon your argument is once again on full display. Points for consistency, though.
Again with the standard being enough fraud to cast doubts on the outcome of an election, no judge is going to say there is enough to overturn a election and call for a revote regardless of how much fraud is demonstrated. You say that any judge would overturn an election result if there was enough fraud or simply doubt for that matter (as in the case of Florida years ago Bush / Gore) demonstrated and call for a revote. I disagree.
Just how would a state wide revote work for a presidential election ? Would it just be for the presidential vote or all votes ? This is a germane question.
It is totally impractical and undo-able and that is my point.
It's pointless. Jared takes $2B from the MBS, DJT solicits $250M by claiming he's going to fight the fake election and then sends the money to his PAC and then his friends and family and business, and the details of Hunter's $600k per year are the most explosive cover-up in the history of US politics?
What's amazing is that Fox and the right continue to spin Russia collusion as some sort of hoax, when the final report issued by the Senate details how the Trump campaign worked with Russia. As usual, don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
Your stupefying propensity to ignore everything and anything that negates your argument is once again on full display. Points for consistency, though.
I started a response...and then backed out.
It's pointless. Jared takes $2B from the MBS, DJT solicits $250M by claiming he's going to fight the fake election and then sends the money to his PAC and then his friends and family and business, and the details of Hunter's $600k per year are the most explosive cover-up in the history of US politics?
What's amazing is that Fox and the right continue to spin Russia collusion as some sort of hoax, when the final report issued by the Senate details how the Trump campaign worked with Russia. As usual, don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jun 22, 2022 - 5:10am
kurtster wrote:
The bolded makes my point as far as I am concerned.
Your stupefying propensity to ignore everything and anything that negates or even casts doubt upon your argument is once again on full display. Points for consistency, though.
Across the board ? Of course most judges will decide a case on its merits. With a presidential election (especially this one) where the standard is as vague as enough or substantial ? Nope, no way in hell is one judge going to throw the country into total chaos and put their life on the line for that. Its pragmatism. Hasn't happened yet in our modern history that I am aware of. The last major case of voter fraud in a presidential election that I can think of was in 1960. The election was not overturned.
“This Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence,” U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann wrote.
“In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.” “This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated,” he said, “One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption … That has not happened.”
The bolded makes my point as far as I am concerned.
. rgio wrote:
kurtster wrote:
As I have said before ... Yes, he lost the fucking election.
Now since you and no one else here cares about the truth regarding the now proven illegitimate Russian Collusion CT that was used to undermine and attempt to overthrow his presidency the entire 4 years of his term, tell me why I should care about January 6th.
I think your definition of "proof" ignores many of the details...otherwise referred to as facts.
Just because he wasn't removed from office doesn't mean he was innocent. The irony of the two cases is that in the first Barr lied to protect Trump (and his job). When that job was lost in the election, Barr apparently found his sense of duty and reason and turns on Trump.
Either way, what happened with regards to Russia has nothing to do with January 6.
Since you agree that the election has been lost, how do you continue to support someone that refuses to accept that outcome? Someone who profits from its perpetuation, and that causes millions to distrust an election process that works well. It's not perfect, but you can't find cases of fraud. The ones you do find are overwhelmingly likely to be Trump supporters.
We can disagree on energy policy, the environment, tax rates, abortion, guns...that's fine. What we can't disagree on is that the country and its form of government are worth saving. We can disagree on the right size of that government, but I think we agree on the general form. Trump has attacked OUR government (yours and mine) more aggressively than anyone since the civil war. He was and is still attempting to destroy our democracy. He plotted to evade the rules solely for personal gain. That can't be allowed.
That's why you should care about Jan 6.
The Russia Collusion CT has everything to do with it. Evidently by your response you still believe it to be true. Why it has everything to do with Jan 6 is that it is the frame of mind that was in the forefront of every one's minds present and still is in the background of the minds of some 50 million people. It was kept alive with the heavily orchestrated suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story being prevented from being mentioned in any social media before the election because it was "Russian disinformation". There are more ways to win an election besides actual voter fraud. The Mueller investigation knew before it started that there was no there, there yet continued because the real purpose was to cause the House to flip in the coming midterm election. Same as this current investigation is meant to keep the House from flipping back.
We agree that the storming of the Capitol was wrong, at any level. But we disagree over this being an insurrection. It was a one off riot that could have been prevented had simple basic security for the anticipated size of the crowd that showed up, been present. In my view, this riot was enabled by those responsible for the security of the Capitol. Curiously, that part of the investigation is being suppressed.
What is Trump's future ? Got me at this point. If the investigation is for the purpose of driving an oak stake in Trump's heart, it will likely fail. It only plays to the base if it ignores the security failures. Include that and more will pay attention.
Refusal to acknowledge the Russia Collusion CT as an outright hoax which included endless coordinated illegal activity by the DNC, DOJ / FBI in at least FISA warrant abuses and putting an actual government spy in a political opponents campaign inner circle (and in the Oval Office) is what keeps Trump's support alive. It is viewed as worse than Watergate by those 50 million mentioned and nothing is being done to acknowledge that concern. And is seen as still ongoing to this day. The perps are in the White House as a direct result of this continuous ongoing effort.
I'm only trying to offer an explanation for how people you dismiss perceive the events of January 6, 2021. You may not agree with this perception, but make no mistake it is real and so far there is nothing going on that will change it as it presently stands.
That was heartbreaking, her and her mother.
And Trump, being an asshole liar, besmirching their names. It accomplished what it was meant to do: put a human, personal, relatable face on the people that get left in his wake as he grasped desperately at the power that wasn't his.
It's one of the rules in the MAGA playbook..." when everything is ________, then nothing is _________." The current word is treason.
It's amazing to listen to black Republicans talk longingly about the structures and morals of the 1950s. Their willingness to pander to white American, racist themes just proves there is no floor to MAGA principles.
