2020 US Election mega thread

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If I were a republican that didn't like Trump, that's exactly what I would do. Biden as pres, Republicans as Senate and house

Yup - and that appears to be exactly what happened there. Trump is so polarizing that not all Republicans like him, so this is a way to vote him out while also not voting to give full control of the Government to the Dems. Looks like it worked too, unless by some miracle the 2 Georgia seats flip in January.

[killramos]

Isn’t voting Biden for president and Republican in the senate literally the opposite of what you just said.

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Isn’t voting Biden for president and Republican in the senate literally the opposite of what you just said.

No. There are no other Republican candidates they can vote for, so if they were unhappy with Trump as an individual but were Republican, voting for Biden (to get Trump out) but voting for Republican Senate/House is a way to remove Trump but still retain a lot of power in the GOP. Like I said, it looks like it worked for them too. With a Republican senate, everything Biden does has to be an executive order which is not as good as having senate support.

[killramos]

I asked you if you thought a lot of people were voting for Donald Trump for president, but voting for a democrat senator. You said yes.

That is literally the opposite of what you are saying now.

Do you just like saying things for the sake of saying things or something?

[dirtsniffer]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

In the states Trump is he demanding a recount, does that count the senate seats they won too? There were several states that voted for Biden, but a GOP member for the Senate. With all this 'fraud', surely they would want to double check everything.

I mean, if democrats wanted to rig the election why wouldn't they do it to the senate vote as well? Some are saying that it's evidence of a vote rigging, but I think it's the opposite. Republican voters, who voted republican for the senate, still voted for Biden.

Ya I was about 10 posts late to the party. Must be a quiet morning in the office for people.

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I asked you if you thought a lot of people were voting for Donald Trump for president, but voting for a democrat senator. You said yes.

That is literally the opposite of what you are saying now.

Do you just like saying things for the sake of saying things or something?

I thought you asked if a large portion of people voted for a Dem. president but Rep. senate member. My mistake if I misread your question.

[The_Rural_Juror]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I mean, if democrats wanted to rig the election why wouldn't they do it to the senate vote as well? Some are saying that it's evidence of a vote rigging, but I think it's the opposite. Republican voters, who voted republican for the senate, still voted for Biden.

Are you repeating my tawking points, little rona?

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I mean, if democrats wanted to rig the election why wouldn't they do it to the senate vote as well? Some are saying that it's evidence of a vote rigging, but I think it's the opposite. Republican voters, who voted republican for the senate, still voted for Biden.

I would agree with you. There also has not been any evidence whatsoever that the Dems did anything to rig the election or engage in some sort of fraud. If you look at what some of the judges have said when dismissing the various lawsuits it's pretty hilarious because they are bringing zero evidence with them. The arguments are so ridiculous you can tell how desperate they are.

[dirtsniffer]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Are you repeating my tawking points, little rona?

Maybe? You have so many posts it's hard to keep up.

[The_Rural_Juror]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Maybe? You have so many posts it's hard to keep up.

It's easy when 99% of them are useless posts, unlike ExtraSlow.

[syscal]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I would agree with you. There also has not been any evidence whatsoever that the Dems did anything to rig the election or engage in some sort of fraud. If you look at what some of the judges have said when dismissing the various lawsuits it's pretty hilarious because they are bringing zero evidence with them. The arguments are so ridiculous you can tell how desperate they are.

I don't understand how you can say they are bringing zero evidence with them? If you watch the actual press releases from the Trump team (not the MSM cuts), you'll see they are bringing PLENTY of evidence to the courts. Some in sworn affidavits, some recorded video, some recorded audio, and plenty of research for thousands of dead people (yes, happens all the time) and non-residents voting - not to mention mail in ballots bring sent on behalf of people saying they didn't send them.

What comes into question is whether the evidence will be accepted by a judge, and whether it's enough to swing the election. Some lawsuits are being dismissed, like the initial ones that came in too late to do anything about (but are now on record, so not a waste of time), but there are plenty more being brought to the courts. MSM headlines all state that this is baseless and unfounded, but then they also think that calling the election themselves somehow bypasses the entire confirmation process...so I think it's all very misleading.

In the end, if ALL the evidence is thrown out and everything ends up as-is - the legal process, which SHOULD be followed, works and Kamala Harris will be president.

If evidence is not thrown out, but it doesn't swing the election, it will hopefully force the US to get their shit together with their election processes. On the world stage they look like absolute jokers right now, and I would blame individual State governments for that before throwing blame on Trump or Biden.

One further point on the lawsuits that were thrown out as being too late to do anything about, but were still brought before the courts. If they didn't file those lawsuits, the judge could argue later on that they weren't concerned enough at the time to take action.

I'm very interested to see how this all plays out.

[The_Rural_Juror]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Kamala Harris will be president.

Hello fellow time traveller!

[Tik-Tok]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hello fellow time traveller!

You don't need to time travel to accept that Biden isn't going to last 4 years, one way or the other.

[mazdavirgin]

So Trump twitter is lighting up with anti Fox News this morning. Apparently OANN and Newsmax are the only approved media for Trump tards.

@The_Rural_Juror you need to update your news sources since you've been watching right wing media! Fox is not approved for the Trump sheeple so please check yourself and change to watching OANN or Newsmax. So speaketh the Twitter of TRUMP!


» Click image for larger version

[The_Rural_Juror]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So Trump twitter is lighting up with anti Fox News this morning. Apparently OANN and Newsmax are the only approved media for Trump tards.

@The_Rural_Juror you need to update your news sources since you've been watching right wing media! Fox is not approved for the Trump sheeple so please check yourself and change to watching OANN or Newsmax. So speaketh the Twitter of TRUMP!

I've been on OAN since Tuesday. I just popped onto Newsmax and found an article on the front page that links sex to cancer. Good thing I have neither.

- - - Updated - - -

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You don't need to time travel to accept that Biden isn't going to last 4 years, one way or the other.

Are we betting on this?

[vengie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Are we betting on this?

I'd be willing to bet Biden won't make it 4 years.

[sabad66]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't understand how you can say they are bringing zero evidence with them? If you watch the actual press releases from the Trump team (not the MSM cuts), you'll see they are bringing PLENTY of evidence to the courts. Some in sworn affidavits, some recorded video, some recorded audio, and plenty of research for thousands of dead people (yes, happens all the time) and non-residents voting - not to mention mail in ballots bring sent on behalf of people saying they didn't send them.

What comes into question is whether the evidence will be accepted by a judge, and whether it's enough to swing the election. Some lawsuits are being dismissed, like the initial ones that came in too late to do anything about (but are now on record, so not a waste of time), but there are plenty more being brought to the courts. MSM headlines all state that this is baseless and unfounded, but then they also think that calling the election themselves somehow bypasses the entire confirmation process...so I think it's all very misleading.

In the end, if ALL the evidence is thrown out and everything ends up as-is - the legal process, which SHOULD be followed, works and Kamala Harris will be president.

If evidence is not thrown out, but it doesn't swing the election, it will hopefully force the US to get their shit together with their election processes. On the world stage they look like absolute jokers right now, and I would blame individual State governments for that before throwing blame on Trump or Biden.

One further point on the lawsuits that were thrown out as being too late to do anything about, but were still brought before the courts. If they didn't file those lawsuits, the judge could argue later on that they weren't concerned enough at the time to take action.

I'm very interested to see how this all plays out.

You’re right, they should have taken election security seriously from the beginning and they could avoided a lot of this mess. If only Republicans actually passed the election security bills that the House sent over to the Senate instead of sending them to Mitch’s graveyard.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Here's a few of the courtroom transcripts regarding all the "evidence" supposedly being brought forth:

PA:
THE COURT: In your petition, which is right before me — and I read it several times — you don’t claim that any electors or the Board of the County were guilty of fraud, correct? That’s correct?
GOLDSTEIN: Your Honor, accusing people of fraud is a pretty big step. And it is rare that I call somebody a liar, and I am not calling the Board of the [Democratic National Committee] or anybody else involved in this a liar. Everybody is coming to this with good faith. The DNC is coming with good faith. We’re all just trying to get an election done. We think these were a mistake, but we think they are a fatal mistake, and these ballots ought not be counted.
THE COURT: I understand. I am asking you a specific question, and I am looking for a specific answer. Are you claiming that there is any fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots?
GOLDSTEIN: To my knowledge at present, no.
THE COURT: Are you claiming that there is any undue or improper influence upon the elector with respect to these 592 ballots?
GOLDSTEIN: To my knowledge at present, no.

MI:
STEPHENS: So I want to make sure I understand you. The affiant is not the person who had knowledge of this. Is that correct?
HEARNE: The affiant had direct firsthand knowledge of the communication with the elections inspector and the document they provided them.
STEPHENS: Okay, which is generally known as hearsay, right?
HEARNE: I would not think that’s hearsay, Your Honor. That’s firsthand personal knowledge by the affiant of what she physically observed. And we included an exhibit which is a physical copy of the note that she was provided.
STEPHENS: I’m still trying to understand why this isn’t hearsay.
HEARNE: Well, it’s, it, I –
STEPHENS: I absolutely understand what the affiant says she heard someone say to her. But the truth of the matter … that you’re going for was that there was an illegal act occurring. Because other than that I don’t know what its relevancy is.
HEARNE: Right. I would say, Your Honor, in terms of the hearsay point, this is a firsthand factual statement made by Ms. Connarn, and she has made that statement based on her own firsthand physical evidence and knowledge --
STEPHENS: “I heard somebody else say something.” Tell me why that’s not hearsay. Come on, now.
HEARNE: Well it’s a firsthand statement of her physical –
STEPHENS: It’s an out-of-court statement offered where the truth of the matter is asserted, right?

In a later written decision, Stephens slammed the argument as “inadmissible hearsay within hearsay.” And after the campaign appealed, a Michigan appeals court rebuked it Monday for not including required documentation.

“I regret to inform you that your submission is defective,” the court said, outlining the missing attachments.

GA:
Judge James Bass dismissed the case in a one-sentence, eight-word ruling, saying, “I’m denying the request and dismissing the petition” and abruptly adjourned the hearing. He then elaborated in a written opinion, saying that “the Court finds that there is no evidence that the ballots referenced in the petition were received after 7:00 p.m. on election day, thereby making those ballots invalid. Additionally, there is no evidence that the Chatham County Board of Elections or the Chatham County Board of Registrars has failed to comply with the law.”


The common problem they're all having is that the Trump lawyers actually have to back up their claims with evidence when they get in front of a judge.

The irony in all this is that every single mutually beneficial election security bill ever brought before the GOP is ignored. Not that I think there was any actual fraud of significance, but it's funny to see them throwing tantrums about the exact thing the dems have been trying for ages to get them to fix.

[Brent.ff]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The common problem they're all having is that the Trump lawyers actually have to back up their claims with evidence when they get in front of a judge.

What a crazy concept

[nzwasp]

https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/...-bidens-health

Biden has a 79% chance of living through a first term and a 70% chance of surviving through a second term, the paper states.