Presidential Election 2020

[inudesu]

if the challenges are treated fairly and dismissed, they will accept defeat.

re-read the whole thing. i wasn't proven wrong. suppression of information fueled this thing just as much as the rhetoric. the rhetoric by itself was too lame to survive on its own.

I feel like the challenges were treated more than fairly and very firmly dismissed. Like, a lot of times. But they didn't accept defeat.

[arkansasbob]

What suppression of information? There were never facts to suppress.

i didn't say anything about facts.

I feel like the challenges were treated more than fairly and very firmly dismissed. Like, a lot of times. But they didn't accept defeat.

i agree, but i'm talking about how the tech companies went out of their way to convince everyone there was nothing to see.

[johnnylightnin]

i didn't say anything about facts.

i agree, but i'm talking about how the tech companies went out of their way to convince everyone there was nothing to see.

Without Tech companies (Facebook in particular) most of these conspiracy theories would never have spread. Maybe their just really bad at suppression.

[arkansasbob]

Without Tech companies (Facebook in particular) most of these conspiracy theories would never have spread. Maybe their just really bad at suppression.

my point is it was foolish to try.

[FriscoDawg]

I feel like the challenges were treated more than fairly and very firmly dismissed. Like, a lot of times. But they didn't accept defeat.

The constitutional challenges were brushed aside without as much as a first glance. A pre-law student could get it right before any the judges who dismissed those challenges on bogus grounds.

No fraud needed to be proven to call the results of this "election" into question. But that doesn't change the fact that fraud DID occur on a massive scale.

[Guisslapp]

The constitutional challenges were brushed aside without as much as a first glance. A pre-law student could get it right before any the judges who dismissed those challenges on bogus grounds.

No fraud needed to be proven to call the results of this "election" into question.

You are ignorant.

The judges correctly dismissed them.

[inudesu]

The constitutional challenges were brushed aside without as much as a first glance. A pre-law student could get it right before any the judges who dismissed those challenges on bogus grounds.

No fraud needed to be proven to call the results of this "election" into question. But that doesn't change the fact that fraud DID occur on a massive scale.

That's pretty bad luck to run into 60 bad judges. Next time Republicans control the White House they should try really hard to appoint a lot of conservative ones.

But if the contention is that nothing needed to be proven, then I'll be happy to concede that this goal has been accomplished.

[FriscoDawg]

That's pretty bad luck to run into 60 bad judges. Next time Republicans control the White House they should try really hard to appoint a lot of conservative ones.

But if the contention is that nothing needed to be proven, then I'll be happy to concede that this goal has been accomplished.

There have not been 60 Republican and official campaign lawsuits tossed. There most certainly have not been 60 constitutional challenges improperly tossed. Stop believing fake news.

Try paying attention to state legislators who have investigated themselves and have seen and heard evidence and have requested decertification of electors in those states after going over the evidence.

[Guisslapp]

There have not been 60 Republican and official campaign lawsuits tossed. There most certainly have not been 60 constitutional challenges improperly tossed. Stop believing fake news.

Try paying attention to state legislators who have investigated themselves and have seen and heard evidence and have requested decertification of electors in those states after going over the evidence.

You are really comparing politicians that want to get re-elected with judges? These legislatures are the same as Cruz and Hawley. Creating a show to prove their fealty to Trump.

Return to reality.

[techman05]

If I was a federal judge who was not subject to re-election, I would be sure to keep the people happy who have an established record of attacking government figures they don’t like. Yes, you can count on 1 hand the groups that the media claim are Trump supporters who have committed attacks. But to claim that these officials aren’t more afraid of radical left groups is intellectually dishonest.

[Guisslapp]

If I was a federal judge who was not subject to re-election, I would be sure to keep the people happy who have an established record of attacking government figures they don’t like. Yes, you can count on 1 hand the groups that the media claim are Trump supporters who have committed attacks. But to claim that these officials aren’t more afraid of radical left groups is intellectually dishonest.

You have no clue. You are just ignorant. The FBI has been saying for years that the greatest threat is homegrown domestic right-wing terrorism. You really need to branch out from rightwing media.

And judges do what they think is right. They don’t act in fear. I tell you this from experience.

[dawg80]

You have no clue. You are just ignorant. The FBI has been saying for years that the greatest threat is homegrown domestic right-wing terrorism. You really need to branch out from rightwing media.

And judges do what they think is right. They don’t act in fear. I tell you this from experience.

I know! it was those very folks who were burning and looting all summer. It was those groups who attacked people minding their own business in restaurants. It was those people who murdered that black police officer and who attacked the Federal building in Portland. I wish George Soros would stop funding all these right-wing terrorist groups.

[inudesu]

There have not been 60 Republican and official campaign lawsuits tossed. There most certainly have not been 60 constitutional challenges improperly tossed. Stop believing fake news.

Try paying attention to state legislators who have investigated themselves and have seen and heard evidence and have requested decertification of electors in those states after going over the evidence.

How many have there been?

We won't count the lawsuits filed contesting the election (or just part of the election, since the down ticket elections don't seem to be getting protested much). Because I guess those are in support of some other guy running for president named Trump. So they can be frivolous, but shouldn't be counted against the evidence that the election has been scrutinized and found fair. Because. . .reasons? But sure, let's pad the GPA a little for the GOP. I'm sure nobody has been making the argument of "look at all the lawsuits, see, there is lots of doubt."

How many lawsuits did they officially lose? Any? Batting 1.000 on getting this sucker overturned are we? Or was it just that they ran into that 1 (or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 10, but not 60) super-liberal, totally on the take, completely ignorant of federal and constitutional law judge(s)?

[techman05]

You have no clue. You are just ignorant. The FBI has been saying for years that the greatest threat is homegrown domestic right-wing terrorism. You really need to branch out from rightwing media.

And judges do what they think is right. They don’t act in fear. I tell you this from experience.

The good thing is, I don’t have to rely on any media. Having well connected family in DC and other places, I know what is really happening .

[Guisslapp]

The good thing is, I don’t have to rely on any media. Having well connected family in DC and other places, I know what is really happening .

Clearly you don’t.