That's J.D. Vance answer this question from a reporter: "What message do you think it sends to independent voters when you do not directly answer the question: Did Donald Trump lose in 2020?"
I agree with the reporter that Vance has been avoiding giving a direct answer, but he said he'd "answered this question directly a million times." This is the first clear "no" he's said.
Vance goes on to say what I've heard him say before, mostly, that it doesn't matter, but then also that censorship affected the election.
How do you get from the idea that something affected the votes to the idea that the candidate who was negatively affected can be thought of as having won the election?
It feels like something a folksy character might say in a sentimental movie. The team loses and the kids are crying, and the old coach revives their spirits with something like You say you lost? Lost?!! No, my boys. You did not lose. Look around. Blah blah blah. Something about the friends they made, the skills they learned, the pride that will last a lifetime. Blah blah blah. I say you won!
Vance went to law school. Yale Law School. I know he knows how to say something legal about the processes for challenging an election and how they need to fit a time period and come to an end and give us an outcome, and we accept that not because it's perfect, but because the process is good enough and life goes on. Well, he almost says that. I think he could speak more clearly and more legalistically but I don't expect to be satisfied, and I'm not grading papers anymore.
Posts
118 comments:
He could just say the American people lost.
Why can’t he just say that presidents are elected by the electoral college and Biden got 306 votes to 232?
If the Biden campaign didn’t think it would change votes, why go to such lengths to hide it?
It's illegal to question Democrats!
Here are 24 straight minutes of Democrats denying election results.
The legal procedure for challenging a doubtful election is what Trump did.
I get why he doesn’t want to wade into the topic, because the press will never let him get out of it. They’d be more than happy to talk endlessly about 2020 to keep from having to discuss 2021-2024.
Short of that they’re looking for some version of Vance’s remarks they can spin into “Trump is a liar.”
The illegal procedure is what Hillary did.
The tradition is that finality is more important than accuracy. That tradition lives on only when inaccuracy is not so insanely high that people won't buy it as viable.
The correct answer would seem to be "We don't know who really won, since the Dems shut down every attempt to audit the results."
If the D's really were sure everything was fair and above board, THEY would be the ones pushing for full audits to show no fake votes, no mail in fraud, etc.
At some point - TESTY leftist Democrat hack journalists who are unable to ask questions that matter to ordinary Americans - and who only focus on 2020 and Jan 6th - they've asked enough questions.
This was Vance saying - Shut the F up already.
The corrupt left CENSORED NEWS. They did so thru FBI-DOJ threats. That is not democracy.
If you had asked anybody who went through the public schools prior to about 1990, that is the answer that they would have given, that Trump followed the Constitutional process for challenging an election.
What has happened though is that it has been repeated trillions of times, if you count a repetition as an individual person hearing something, that challenging an election (obviously fine, look at Al Gore) now equals "overturning an election" which is what Al Gore was trying to do, but obviously, we take the other meaning of "overturning an election" which has come to be "to subvert the will of the voters," when that was not, in any way, what Trump was trying to do.
But repetition will have its way.
Millions of American believe 2020 was stolen by dems cheating. By ballot stuffing - and counting in secret.. for days on end.
If the left could - they would round up millions of Americans, and place them in a gulag - where they would be required to be de-programmed.
"What message do you think it sends to independent voters when you do not directly answer the question: Did Donald Trump lose in 2020?"
The question is irrelevant. Voters will be told what to think.
Point A: The Censorship Industrial Complex is very real and it's spectacular. Matt Taibbi's recent Rescue The Republic Speech is prescient. "So let me pause to say something about America's current intellectual class from which the anti-disinformation complex works. By the way, there are no working class censors. The dirty secret of content moderation all over the world is that it's a tiny sliver of educated rich correcting everybody else. It's telling people what fork to use, but you can get a degree in it, basically. The problem is America has the most useless aristocrats in history. Even the French dandies who were marched to the razor by the Jacobins were towering specimens of humanity compared to the Michael Hadens, John Brennan's, James Clapper's, Mike McFall's, and Rick Stengel's who make up America's self-appointed speech police. In pre-revolutionary France, even the most drunken, depraved, debauched libertine had to be prepared to back up an insolent act with a sword fight to the death. Our aristocrats pee themselves at a mean tweet. These people have no honor, no belief, no poetry, no art, no humor, no patriotism, which is unique to them, no loyalty, no dreams, and no accomplishments. They are simultaneously illiterate and pretentious, which is very hard to pull off. They may have one idea, and it's not even an idea, but a sensation. Fear. Rightly so, because they snitch each other out at the drop of a hat. They're afraid of each other. But they're also terrified of everyone outside their social set, and they live in near constant dread of being caught with even one original opinion."
Point B: The Lawfare Industrial Complex is very real, spectacular, and clearly biased towards government in almost all cases that aren't examples of gross negligence and fraud. You've been living under a rock for the last 8 years if you can't see how the system has been weaponized to attack those the regime regards as opponents.
In short, there is zero reason to believe Vance isn't correct in assuming a systemic-wide bias that A) unfairly, unethically, and illegally influenced the American people and B) didn't in and of itself engage and motivated its agents to take actions that directly led to fraud and theft of an election.
Hillary tried to subvert the Electoral College on the grounds that Trump had different policy positions than she did, oh, and based on lies that she knew that she had paid people to make up, and therefore he could never be legitimate. Hillary invented delegitimization of the American President. It's the most destructive thing that she could have done to "democracy."
Surely Vance should say that as regards the officially certified result, Trump lost ( after all, that’s why he’s no longer in the White House) but that he has serious doubts about both the fairness of the conduct of the election, and the legality of the vote counting process in certain places where counting was under Democratic control. How the result would come out if only lawfully cast ballots were correctly counted is now impossible to say.
Surely Vance should say that as regards the officially certified result, Trump lost ( after all, that’s why he’s no longer in the White House) but that he has serious doubts about both the fairness of the conduct of the election, and the legality of the vote counting process in certain places where counting was under Democratic control. How the result would come out if only lawfully cast ballots were correctly counted is now impossible to say.
Biden got 81 million ballots and won the Electoral College count. Trump's attempts at vetting the election were thwarted when his lawsuits were thrown out of court due to "lack of standing," not on merit. Biden therefore was installed in the Oval Office, where he has peripatetically been ensconce on occasion between his frequent excursions to Delaware. Whether Trump actually would have won absent the Democrat shenanigans of 2020 is immaterial at this point; the incalculable damage to our nation has been done by the Biden-Harris regime.
Rudy had to be destroyed over it. The left celebrate his destruction. They are Soviets.
Biden was the certifiable winner.
George Soros runs the Democrat Party like a money whore puppet master. Soros demands the destruction of our nation - so the his vile family can re-build it, with their corrupt billionaire fascism controlling ever aspect of our lives. Yeah - I said it. Don't bleive me? I do not care.
Best reply.
I don't think anybody can answer the question, because none of us are omniscient. It's a basic question of whether you trust the government, and the people counting the votes. If you do, then you believe that Biden won, and Trump lost. But if you doubt the government, then you doubt the validity of the election.
The Democrats have done a lot of things to hurt this basic trust in government. They're opposed to voter ID, something that vast majorities of Americans want. And the Democrats have intentionally brought in millions of illegal immigrants. If you are opposed to voter ID, and you simultaneously bring in lots of potential Democrat voters, that seems very suspicious.
If the 2020 election was valid, the Democrats would not be so scared about Donald Trump. Who is afraid to run against an unpopular loser? (Republicans would be happy if Hillary ran again!) But the sketchy prosecutions against Trump suggest that the Democrats have always been terrified that he would run again. Why would you be so scared of him, unless you had suspicions (or knowledge) that the Biden vote totals were bogus?
A party that is willing to bring fake and ridiculous criminal charges against their political opponent is a party that is willing to cheat in an election.
Win "=" lose. #NoJudgment #NoLabels
Our elections are inauditable and the democrats fight tooth and nail to keep them that way.
Georgia recently passed a law that poll workers have to count the paper ballots they have on hand so that they can compare how many ballots they have with the number of ballots run through the machine. This keeps people from running the ballots through more than once. A democrat judge blocked it. Tell me that's not to facilitate fraud.
if the disputed ballots cannot be verified and the evidence was not heard unlike in 2000, which the Dems still disputed long after. then you cannot affirm 81 million votes,
I get your point Althouse, and I would say Trump lost 2020 based on the legal standpoint that he did not win. This is politics though. If Hillary Clinton can say Trump was illegitimately elected, then why should anyone on the right give ground to her?
We listened for years that Al Gore won and Bush lost. Every time this century that Republicans won the Presidency, Democrats, particularly Sheila Jackson Lee, contested the certification of the electoral college. It won't happen this year, at least from Jackson Lee, only because she died. However, James Raskin has already promised to contest the results even before the election has happened. Yet, it is only Republican candidates that get asked the question over and over.
Until reporters constantly barrage Hillary Clinton, and Stacey Abrams for another, with "when they'll acknowledge they lost the election"; the effort is purely partisan hackery. Trump followed the law, left office, allowed a transition government, didn't spy on the transition government, and that is that.
Trump lost an election and gained a demos-cracy, thus the Democratic witch hunts to abort demos-cracy through diverse elections.
If only the “media” could show even half the interest they waste on this in the important issues and problems the American people have been struggling with.
50 Threats to Election Integrity
“We’re now seeing 53 counties in Michigan with more than 100% registration, which obviously means there are some names on there that don’t belong there,”
when one is reminded where Jamie Raskin comes from the son of an actual Soviet of Influence, recruited from the Kennedy Defense Department much like red spaw Mark Halperin's father, Mort
@JD Vance — Early voting has the *exact* same requirements as Election Day voting, you imbecile. Republicans used to lead in doing early voting until Trump showed up.
It's weird JD never complained when MAGA candidates win on the same system.
“We just recorded the 1,500th proven instance of election fraud in recent years in our Election Fraud Database.” ~ Heritage Foundation
Number of illegal immigrants caught trying to vote since 1980.
68
Why would we buy what you are selling? We don't.
Vance is the smartest of the bunch. However, the bottom line is that nobody can prove either. That Biden won is unprovable - an article of faith. Despite evidence of fraud, illegality and rigging, it is also an article of faith that Trump won. By now, other than the leftmediaswine and crazy Democrats, who cares? The voting system is unreliable and Democrats won't allow it to be fixed.
Best answer: What I believe and what others believe about the fairness of the election in 2020 is a distraction from this election. My focus is on making sure that censorship does not happen this time and that election procedures follow the law for 2024.
Repeat until they stop asking.
Vance should just answer, "The Democrats cheated fair and square."
It’s a federal crime for noncitizens to register or vote in federal elections, and it’s a crime under every state’s laws. So it should come as no surprise that every legitimate study ever done on the question shows that voting by noncitizens in state and federal elections is vanishingly rare.
You mean the number of illegal immigrants that the lying corrupt government tell us they caught trying to vote since 1980, since we know they lie about numbers to help Democrats with everything else, and then later quietly update with the correct amount which is ALWAYS a lot worse.
I think quite frankly, and Trump has mentioned this, we make our elections so drawn out, over complicated and subject to crazy manipulation by both sides. And the elections are state by state so it’s not really fair to say that we can’t compare ourselves to France whose population is considerably smaller than the US. We should be able to have an answer on election day. I person voting should be the rule and a government ID should be mandatory. I don’t have a problem with early voting for convenience but I think it shortchanged voters to a degree.
The issue that gives me the most pause on whether Trump won or lost were all the Coved related machinations that really did open the door for potential fraudulent ballots. Maybe there were none but a large court cases Trump brought were dismissed on standing and not merit so we don’t know the facts. And the lack of transparency in how the votes were counted only plays into those who create conspiracy theories.
I accept that Biden won the election. I have my doubts that he won fairly and I’ll concede it was legal but the law(s) were stretched to the limit for him to do so.
Who exactly is talking about early voting, Bich? We are talking about mail-in-ballots, not early voting at the precinct you dumb piece of dogshit.
Squish. If JD Vance talked about the 2 AM steal, he'd be pumping up his audience on a level similar to Trump. He doesn't dare tell the truth about the election, though, and his equivocation is why Trump won't trust him. I'm actually surprised. Vance should have learned after what happened to Pence.
This comment +1000.
Georgia judge blocks ballot counting rule and says county officials must certify election results ~ AP
/ATLANTA (AP) — A judge has blocked a new rule that requires Georgia Election Day ballots to be counted by hand after the close of voting. The ruling came a day after the same judge ruled that county election officials must certify election results by the deadline set in law./
Strikes down seven Election Board rules -- including the hand count and certification rules — declaring them “illegal, unconstitutional and void.”
How do you get from the idea that something affected the votes to the idea that the candidate who was negatively affected can be thought of as having won the election?
I think it is different when branches of the government actively collude against the sitting president/candidate, as happened throughout Trump's tenure - the Hunter Biden laptop coverup (50 intelligence agents letter, coercing silence and censorship from social media, etc.), judges refusing to reject clear violations of state and federal laws and constitutional provisions to enable shady voting procedures, counting being halted but then continued out of sight of republican vote watchers, etc. - now continued with the repeated attempts to jail Trump and to kick him off of the ballots of several states. It is a very easy leap to the conclusion that these, in combination, resulted in a swing of the very small amount of deciding votes so as to change the outcome.
It was a Schrodinger's election - we cannot know the answer without actually going back and looking at all the problems, but to go back and look is to directly affect/change the result. From here on out, we cannot trust the results of any nationwide election.
Thanks dems.
"Well, he almost says that."
He's just contractually obligated (to his future boss) to wrap it in a big No.
Vance knows this issue will dog him in 2028. He'd rather turn the page on it, but he has to keep doubt alive if he wanted to be Trump's running mate.
He could also say that of course Joe Biden won. He stole the election. That's HOW he won. It's not a question of IF Joe Biden won. We all know he won. He currently lives in the White House and enjoys enough Secret Service protection to prevent people from getting to him in the way that they allow people to get to Donald Trump.
Joe Biden won through electoral fraud and cheating - a rigging of our elections. Of course he won.
Censorship, steering, fraud, and diverse irregularities that could not be audited with Democratic processes and persons. Also, misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation from the Democratic axis.
I make my living consulting to large organizations (Finance, Tech, Government, Universities) to analyze and improve complex operational processes for efficiency, workflow speed, and security/verifiability. In my opinion, the voting process in America can only be described as "designed to facilitate fraud and not enable or even allow a definitive audit."
Anyone who claims that the current procedures are "certifiable" is lying or does not understand what it means to definitively certify a result. Any professional auditor or process analyst would laugh at the absurdly loose voting procedures (no confirmation of valid voters, minimal control of ballot issuance and ballot-to-voter counts, loose chain of possession controls, inadequate pre-test/run-time controls/post-test of automated systems, questionable validity of recount procedures, etc.).
It is to laugh at those who assert everyone must trust such a flawed system or be labeled a threat to democracy. The voting process as currently designed IS the threat to democracy.
Because it matters HOW Joe Biden achieved that victory.
The Democrats should finally admit that Trump actually won the 2020 election. He is therefore ineligible for a 3rd term : )
People who win with 81 million votes do not surround our nation's capital with razor wire to keep Americans out of Washington DC while they're being installed.
…and I’d bet my house there isn’t a meaningful group of independent voters hinging their vote on Vance’s capitulation on the cooked election four years ago…
Biden was installed ... but for only 3.5 years. Then he suffered a coup that he is powerless (apparently) to stop. Did Biden really win? Or was the result engineered solely to keep Trump out of office and Biden out of power, so they had to build Biden a fake Oval Office for him to putter around in while the real Oval Office was being used by someone else?
"Vanishingly rare."
You mean "possible" and occurs frequently despite all those laws.
Number of people currently in federal prison for voting: ZERO
Democrats have banned voter ID.
THINK ON THAT.
just like cheating on taxes, huh?
"It’s a federal crime"
Oh, well since the FBI just updated their statistics, you can now back up your claim with the number of prosecutions under the Biden/Harris administration.
"Did Donald Trump lose the election" is a dishonest manipulative question that doesn't deserve an answer.
The elections were a mess and we don't know who would have won if the elections were clean, but we do know that Democrats want them a mess and are fighting efforts to clean them up.
The Democrats figure so called election denial and abortion are their best bets, and continually f*ck those chickens. There were red flags all over the place in the 2020 election, but best for Republicans to avoid the issue. It only distracts from reality of Democrat failures in pretty much everything that matters: economy, education, illegal immigration, and war.
Disagree. Pence was an enemy in the tent. Vance deflected that well.
It's kind of like the Saints NFC championship game in 2019. The records show the Saints lost, but it was the NFL version of Hunter's lap top suppression https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x66DzCsNfEU
I dunno. Unlike our host I only graded law school examinations for a single semester--and on a single subject real property law. But I do like Vance's answer. He's focused on the future not the past.
The Democrats are like 10 year old boys in an elementary schoolyard brawl. The teacher separates them. The apparent victor stands there screaming at the other--"It's not over until you say you lost." Hey Buckwheat, the fight is over one way or the other. And four years later you're still screaming about it.
"How do you get from the idea that something affected the votes to the idea that the candidate who was negatively affected can be thought of as having won the election?"
You can't. You'd have to talk about a lot of other problems that occurred with the 2020 election too. Vance apparently doesn't want to get drawn into that. The people he's trying to win over at this point are the middle-of-the-roaders, people who still believe in the integrity of the system and are frightened and repelled by that kind of talk. Listing and explaining all the problems with the 2020 election is way too complicated to go into in that venue and talking about it would just create a lot of sound bites that could be used against Trump/Vance in exchange for zero gain.
At this late stage the goal on both sides is to be the ticket that is the least scary to middle of the road, undecided, persuadable voters and to present a prospect of a bright future and a sense that we'll get past all this dark divisiveness. Middle of the roaders don't like politics being so front of mind all the time. They would like to get back to something that feels normal.
It's interesting that Trump feels more like normal than Kamala does to a lot of undecideds.
No vote left uncountable. Democracy dies in darkness.
Like wading across the Rio Grande and entering the United States?
"NO." So in other words, Vance is either a liar or another election denier crank.
Were there irregularities and even some fraud in 2020? Were there irregularities and even some fraud in 2016? Were there irregularities and even some fraud in 2012? Were there irregularities and even some fraud in 2008? Yes to all of the above. There are always shenanigans.
Was is so pervasive as to steal the election as nutjob Vance says? No. And any non-delusional person - or honest person - admits that.
"they'll focus on some crazy conspiracy theory"
Is that the crazy conspiracy theory that Trump has been promoting since he lost? Or the court cases that were brought on his behalf? Is it unreasonable to focus on these things when Trump still claims that the election was stolen?
The question of DJT's losing the 2020 election is simply a pretext to grab a sound bite to say, "see... even his VP nominee says he lost". Vance won't allow that to happen. The questioners are not seeking to reform the system so that obvious irregularities which could affect vote tallies can be properly adjudicated. The current system isn't set up for that. You go to elections with the system you have, not the system you wish for. No one dragged DJT out of the WH; he left voluntarily notwithstanding his views about the legitimacy. The Dems did essentially the same thing in 2016-17 but with less long-term media attention to the "election denial". The only thing that matters to progressive Dems is getting the 5-sec clip with the word "lost" in it, so it can be played endlessly until the day after the election.
It's pointless to argue over who "won" if there's no agreement on what that means. Obviously, Biden won in the sense that the votes tabulated in his favor translated into more than 270 EVs. However, those seeking to get Vance and others to admit that Biden "won" (and Trump "lost") are trying to attach a lot more meaning to that fact. They're trying to use it to stand as an admission that the election was conducted in a completely fair and lawful manner and there was no meaning level of fraud. That's a problem because it's perfectly reasonable for someone to believe that, although Biden secured 270+ EVs and therefore was certified the winner, there were aspects of the election that made it unfair, illegal, and/or fraudulent to an extent that changed the outcome from what would have resulted had it been conducted in the manner that the 2016 election (or others) had been conducted. However, those who insist that Biden "won" refuse to engage substantively as to those issues. It's either "admit Biden won" or you're an election denier, a conspiracy theorist, or even an insurrectionist. IOW, there's a complete lack of good faith in asking the question. It's not an attempt to understand Vance's perspective on the 2020 election but an attempt to smear him or force him to take a position that they will then use to embarrass and isolate the next person they ask.
"Was is so pervasive as to steal the election as nutjob Vance says? No. And any non-delusional person - or honest person - admits that."
How in the world can you claim to know that? You have no idea.
The election consisted of two nodes, first ballots were cast and submitted. Second, the votes were tabulated and an ec winner was determined.
The outcome at the second node made Beiden the president, he won,
But was there fraud at the first node? The process is structured so that we will never know. We know that censorship and mis reporting occurred. We don’t know all the details of each vote, there is no audit, no blockchain for each vote.
Critics conflate the two nodes, they claim that it is obvious that Beiden won, he did, at the second node. But that says nothing about the hidden events at the first node. Vance would be perfectly correct to say that we know who won, but we don’t know if the process discovered the true winner, and we never will.
How did "no election fraud" become a matter of such profound religious belief? There has been fraud as long as there have been elections. As a former denizen of Chicago I'm aware of the many avenues available for chicanery.
2 + 2 does equal 5
say it.
The true winner being the candidate that received a sufficient number of properly executed and submitted non duplicated ballots by qualified voters, to produce a winning ec score.
“A second firm hired by the Trump campaign to investigate fraud in the 2020 election said all of Trump’s fraud claims were false, the firm’s founder told The Washington Post.
The Trump campaign hired Simpatico Software Systems and its founder, Ken Block, to investigate fraud claims all over the country after the 2020 election.
No substantive voter fraud was uncovered in my investigations looking for it, nor was I able to confirm any of the outside claims of voter fraud that I was asked to look at,” he told the Post. “Every fraud claim I was asked to investigate was false.”
The Hill
Trump’s OWN investigators.
Let me just ask a hypothetical question to those who believe Joe Biden won the election fairly:
What would say were it ever determined that, let's say, 10% of the mail-in-ballots in Fulton County, Georgia were determined to have been accepted with forged signatures?
I ask this question because that is where the fraud most likely happened and it is exactly the thing that no investigator was ever allowed to examine- the excuse always given was that it doesn't matter because the ballots were separated from the signature security envelope. So, Lefties and Never-Trumpers- what would you say if it could be proven that 10% of the Fulton County mail-in-ballots had forged signatures?
...I'm not grading papers anymore.
I'll bet that is the very best part of retirement. Particularly now. You would be appalled at the quality of the work you would be grading today. The problem is compounded by the relentless pressure to lower standards and overlook late work...even to provide makeups for missed exams. The top 20% will do the work and benefit greatly from your class, but the rest are just expecting you to punch their ticket.
- Krumhorn
Mail in or absentee ballots are early voting. Sheesh — don't tell me you’re as dumb as Vance…
Lefty Mark and the dullard defend the indefensible. Time magazine even published a brag about it.
Let me just say that Joe Biden, who campaigned from the basement because on those few occasions when he did venture out, he couldn't draw flies, received not only merely 81 million votes but really most sincerely 81 million votes. As everyone must aver.
Coke Stevenson didn't "win" the democrat primary on 1948 either. He should have. He was cheated out of it by LBJ.
Nor did Nixon "win" Texas in 1960. He should have. He was cheated out of it by LBJ for team Kennedy.
President Trump did not "win" the election of 2020. He should have I think. He was apparently cheated out of it by an apparently rigged voting and counting system.
John Henry
The Dems stopped counting votes so they could manufacture more absent voter ballots, they stole that election and if they have to, they'll steal the upcoming election.
Court decisions (especially those who refuse to address the facts/Issue) are NOT the truth. That Judge X decided there was "No election fraud" does NOT mean their was no election fraud.
Further, many of these court decisions addressed FRAUD. The deliberate changing of ballots from Trump to Biden or the deliberate manufacturing of Fake ballots for Biden, or deliberate distruction of ballots for Trump.
THe courts rarely addressed the counting of INVALID ballots cast by dead people, non-Americans, people not living in the state, people from invalid addresses, or not filled out accurately. Trump constantly demanded Fulton County verify the signatures on the mail-in ballots. The GA secretary of state constantly refused to do so.
Mariposa County in AZ committed electrol malpractice with the purpose of counting every ballot cast without putting in any safequards against fraud or making sure the ballots were valid. Why? Because they knew most of their votes were D, and more ballots counted the more D votes.
The Democrats could have audited the ballots right after the election and showed Trump wrong. They refused to do so, because they cheated and they didn't want to be caught. Innocent people dont mind audits, only guilty people do. Demcorates and scum like Mitt Romney were shouting the election was fair and accurate - days after the count and before they had any evidence.
Looks like Vance got his ass sat down by the king and told you can't keep himmin and hawing you got to say I won. Vance. Yes your majesty. 2 sad peas in a pod!.Just forget just about any of "I only hire the best people who not only wont support him or his lies but callhim on his bullshit.Cant even name them all take up too much space.This. blatant lie is the final nail in the perps coffin. The only thing trump one is his duping of all his trumpers who also say yes your majesty with no court documented truth and I guess the now whole previous administration of RINOS. How easily conned by the Dohe lot, you lost and it will be worse this last time
Come on man step back to reality The women are coming!!
we didn't lose, because we would have won in an alternate reality
still a shit argument, just like it was for gore and hillary
I watched a nightly news anchor for ABC, NBC, or CBS (I don't remember which, but it was one of the big three) declare the election free of fraud 2 DAYS after the election.
The Post seems to imply Obama is trying to reassure Joe that ‘there’s time’ and perhaps Obama is going to hit the campaign trail with her. Isn’t Obama 0-forever on endorsing Democrat candidates? He’s endorsement kryptonite. Campaigns would empty their coffers just to keep him away. Joe ‘He’s gonna put y’all back in chains’ reruns would play better…
No, "censorship" did not affect the election. That's silly … and wrong.
Direct and deliberate misrepresentation by the mainstream media in cahoots with the deep state prevented pertinent information on one of the candidates from being made available to the voting public. That information undoubtedly would have influenced a number of voters to vote differently.
That is a fact … indisputable. The election was significantly influenced by the actions of a cabal, pure and simple.
" but we do know that Democrats want them a mess and are fighting efforts to clean them up."
The only reason to oppose the effort to clean up elections is to make it easier to cheat. If Democrats thought it would improve their chances of winning, they'd be in favor of election integrity. End of story.
In a strange coinkydink “vanishingly rare” is exactly the way I like rich teh bitch.
“ How do you get from the idea that something affected the votes to the idea that the candidate who was negatively affected can be thought of as having won the election?”
Perhaps it has something to do with a concept of a ‘fair fight’ that most women have trouble to get a grasp of?
Why refight the attempt to apply election laws to the 2020 fraudulent vote counts. The courts ALL ran away and hid behind STANDING to refuse to hear the evidence and arguments.
Ergo: all discussions of the unchangeable past are gotcha questions. The smooth educated Scots Irish Yale guy won’t play that game.
You can say the First Law of Trial Attorney work is to never make the opponents case for him. In other words if he forgets a winning argument you never bring it up. Same goes for having your client testify unless absolutely necessary. That’s because the other side can make out their entire case using cross examination. The Second Rule is once you have a favorable ruling or great witness testimony you SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP.
So all that lap Top stuff is a way to seem Tomargue without raising the issue of vote count fraud that it’s too late to make a difference today. Today is about the Great. Orange Communcator’s hammering home the truth.
This is one of the those "social truth" versus "physical truth" questions that is impossible to resolve when the two sides can't agree on how closely tethered the two types of "truth" are. The "social truth" is that a variety of social systems--Secretary's of State "certifying" the election, the electors casting their votes--conferred social truth, and as a result, Trump left the White House, etc. But whether or not the "physical truth" matches up to the "social truth" is unknowable: which is why there will be no resolution to the issue. There was no complete, public, forensic audit of the election in any of the disputed states, and there was no determination whether or not modifications to the election practices due to covid (or at least justified by reference to covid) were in fact legal under relevant state and federal laws. There was no such an audit and no timely legal determinations can lead to INFERENCES, but not secure conclusions, which means that both sides are equally justified (or unjustified) in their assertions.
It would be a very good think to make the two types of truth match up, but I'm not holding my breath that it will happen, as the current ridiculous mess of a system appears to benefit the insiders, who therefore will not fix it.
"The Democrats have done a lot of things to hurt this basic trust in government. They're opposed to voter ID..."
Kamala wanted to distribute 1 million loans of up to $20,000 that could be fully forgivable (isn't a fully forgivable loan actually a gift?) to blacks before the fallout forced her to add "and others" to her "vote buying" list. Initially, when the loans were only intended to go to blacks, do you think Democrats would have opposed an effort to confirm the racial ID of a potential recipient and allow some of that money go to hispanics or asians or... gasp! whites?
Of course they wouldn't.
Democrats are only opposed to ID when they perceive opposing it to be in their own best interest.
Vance is really good at not answering questions. All politicians try and avoid answering difficult questions. He's weighing the cost/benefit analysis of this. Will he lose more voters than he will gain by avoiding saying that Biden won the 2020 election? I'd have to say, yes. It's better to be vague than risk losing voters.
Were there irregularities and even some fraud in 2020?
Did five swing states immediately stop counting (at the same time) with Trump in the lead, send the poll watchers home, start up counting again and miraculously had Biden in the lead three hours later? Yes.
Were there irregularities and even some fraud in 2016?
Did five swing states immediately stop counting (at the same time) with Hillary in the lead, send the poll watchers home, start up counting again and miraculously had Trump in the lead three hours later? No.
Were there irregularities and even some fraud in 2012?
Did five swing states immediately stop counting (at the same time) with Romney in the lead, send the poll watchers home, start up counting again and miraculously had Obama in the lead three hours later? No.
Were there irregularities and even some fraud in 2008?
Did five swing states immediately stop counting (at the same time) with McCain in the lead, send the poll watchers home, start up counting again and miraculously had Obama in the lead three hours later? No.
Until you can explain that, shut the fuck up.
"rich" doesn't want anyone counting votes unless they are on his/her team.
Trust but Verfiy :
D's and your legal structure say Trust because we dare not/ can not let you Verify
The court cases, even one on behalf of states to the USSC, were all denied on "standing." No evidence was ever heard,
And I would like to welcome the new troll. Try to post more intelligent things.
Coke Stevenson was the hero of one of Caro's biography of LBJ. Great detail on the cheat. Abe Fortis was involved, too.
So when Trump and other MAGA candidates win -- the result it’s genuine, when he loses the result is fraudulent? Perhaps there is another explanation for the above that doesn’t involve voter fraud but a psychiatrist could better express than me?
Rightwing organizations have spent months and millions of dollars all around the US contesting ballot procedures and voter eligibility.
Republicanism has sadly become synonymous with post truthism. I no longer recognize it as a real political party. Rather it has become a movement of people who believe they themselves are the chosen ones, above law, above order and above God. Everything that America is supposed not to be.
This will be Trump's legacy.
I suspect that the history books will not be kind.
Wow- who here is shocked that Bich doesn't understand there are two ways to early vote? Bich, we aren't complaining about in-person early voting which is conducted exactly like Election Day voting but you were attempting to conflate early in-person voting with mail-in-ballots and the two methods absolutely are not conducted and verified in the exact same way. Quit lying- try telling the truth for once, you dumb piece of shit.
The state legislature gets the first and last word in presidential elections.
Vance went to law school. Yale Law School. I know he knows how to say something legal about the processes for challenging an election and how they need to fit a time period and come to an end and give us an outcome, and we accept that not because it's perfect, but because the process is good enough and life goes on.
This is really disappointing, Prof. Vance is saying "We know we got screwed, but we are willing to move on."
You won't accept that. You are saying "You are not allowed to say you got screwed. You must accept that what happened is right and good."
That isn't going to happen, any more than Black people are going to accept that what happened in America to them was fair (to use a hyperbolic example). But to move on as a nation we need to accept that there
is real anger, and that people legitimately believe that they got screwed (because it happened). And that "the processes for challenging an election" is total crap, because it was used to justify the screwing.
Vance is offering an olive branch. Think long and hard before you reject it.
"If the D's really were sure everything was fair and above board, THEY would be the ones pushing for full audits to......"
If you want to see the Democrats get super-interested in audits, just watch what happens when they lose.
Butkus51
“2 + 2 does equal 5
say it.”
MADRED: There is no [neutral representative]. The word will be that you perished with your crew. No one will ever know that you are here with us, as you will be for a long, long time. You do, however, have a choice. You can live out your life in misery, held here, subject to my whims, or you can live in comfort with good food and warm clothing, women as you desire them, allowed to pursue your studies of philosophy and history. I would enjoy debating with you. You have a keen mind. It's up to you. A life of ease, of reflection and intellectual challenge, or this.
PICARD: What must I do?
MADRED: Nothing, really. Tell me how many lights you see. How many? How many lights? This is your last chance. The guards are coming. Don't be a stubborn fool. How many?
(Gul Lemec enters)
LEMEC: You told me he would be ready to go.
MADRED: We had some unfinished business.
LEMEC: Get him cleaned up. A ship is waiting to take him back to the Enterprise. Captain Picard, if you'll go with the guards, they'll take care of you.
PICARD: There are four lights!
(Later on board the Enterprise)
TROI: I read your report.
PICARD: What I didn't put in the report was that at the end he gave me a choice between a life of comfort or more torture. All I had to do was to say that I could see five lights, when in fact, there were only four.
TROI: You didn't say it?
PICARD: No, no, but I was going to. I would have told him anything. Anything at all. But more than that, I believed that I could see five lights.
Yancey @ 6:59pm,
"we aren't complaining about in-person early voting"
Well I certainly am. Just because it's less awful than mail-in balloting, doesn't mean it's a positively good thing.
But we didn't lose, and Biden (for whom I did not vote) did not "steal the election." No proof has ever been presented. The continuing wailing about the mythical "stolen election" is simply the lamenting and wishing and make belief of deeply childish adults.
"Millions of American believe 2020 was stolen by dems cheating. By ballot stuffing - and counting in secret.. for days on end."
Just another example of the deep irrationality (and childishness and ignorance) of many Americans. No proof has ever been produced.
Between the inflation and the illegal alien invasion and crimes, and Russia's attack on Ukraine that would never have happened if Trump was President, the US has definitely lost by Dems getting power
Post a Comment