Presidential Election 2020

[PawDawg]

You are gonna be so lost for a purpose in life soon....pity you.

He will live off his hate of bad orange man for at least another 4 to 8 years.

[Guisslapp]

All businesses are responsible for protecting their own businesses.

But when the attack comes from a nation state, a foreign policy response is also required. Trump won’t stand up to Russia for obvious reasons.

Biden: "We will do that by, among other things, imposing substantial costs on those responsible for such malicious attacks, including in coordination with our allies and partners. Our adversaries should know that, as President, I will not stand idly by in the face of cyber assaults on our nation."

[TYLERTECHSAS]

All businesses are responsible for protecting their own businesses.

But when the attack comes from a nation state, a foreign policy response is also required. Trump won’t stand up to Russia for obvious reasons.

Trump has been the only real one to stand up to Putin and Russia since Reagan.
Obama bowed to everyone which means Harris/Biden will even more; especially China, Russia and Iran.

[arkansasbob]

How did you know about yellow passports? I had to Bing that.

As for emulating Russia, yeah with this incoming administration ruled by Crazy Bernie and AOC, we will look a lot like Russia, or perhaps Red China is a better comparison.

dostoevsky.

[dawg80]

dostoevsky.

Haven't read any of his stuff. But, once I complete my current reading list, I'll look into it.

[inudesu]

let them flail about and let this play out. trump supporters are not generally the type to go along with a usurpation. they are generally in favor of the rule of law. if the challenges are treated fairly and dismissed, they will accept defeat. the only thing that has a chance of turning trump supporters violent is the current lack of transparency and suppression of information that serves as confirmation of all the conspiracy theories.

I see no downside to the Trump campaign's legal challenges to some of the election results, in Penn., etc... No matter what "the truth" is it will be revealed. That might be:

1) there was some fraud, cheating, irregularities, questionable practices and hopefully it will all be revealed and then corrected for future elections
2) hopefully those guilty of outright fraud will be nailed, arrested and charged and those cases made known nationally, to serve as a deterrent to others
3) it will probably reveal some fraud but it was not enough to change the results...which will, at least, put to rest that Biden is indeed president-elect
4) and that will lead to a "healing" of some sorts and the country can move on.

In summary, I say just let the Trump campaign pursue this as far as they can, because in the end it will do more good than harm.

I wish y'all had been right about this.

[inudesu]

dostoevsky.

Haven't read any of his stuff. But, once I complete my current reading list, I'll look into it.

But if all this discussion does nothing else good but introduce dawg80 to my boy Fyodor there will at least be that small silver lining.

He's great, you'll love him (Brothers Karamazov is well worth the effort it takes to get through the beginning. Starts slow, but when I finished I wanted it to go on another couple of hundred pages).

[dawg80]

I wish y'all had been right about this.

The truth never came out, so yeah, disappointing. And it will have far-reaching ramifications too. Instead of putting the matter to rest, all that has happened is kicking the can down the road and the fuse to the powder keg is still lit...and growing shorter.

[inudesu]

The truth never came out, so yeah, disappointing. And it will have far-reaching ramifications too. Instead of putting the matter to rest, all that has happened is kicking the can down the road and the fuse to the powder keg is still lit...and growing shorter.

60 lawsuits man. That's a lot. You can't think all 60 were dismissed on technicalities or by unfair liberal judges. All the rulings are public. Some of the clearest were by Republicans (even Trump) appointees. You can't really think they're all in on some grand conspiracy to steal the election.

[dawg80]

60 lawsuits man. That's a lot. You can't think all 60 were dismissed on technicalities or by unfair liberal judges. All the rulings are public. Some of the clearest were by Republicans (even Trump) appointees. You can't really think they're all in on some grand conspiracy to steal the election.

We've been over this ground already....regardless of what you and some others think, and hope, the fuse is lit.

[Guisslapp]

The truth never came out, so yeah, disappointing. And it will have far-reaching ramifications too. Instead of putting the matter to rest, all that has happened is kicking the can down the road and the fuse to the powder keg is still lit...and growing shorter.

The truth did come out. You were just expecting a different truth.

[FriscoDawg]

60 lawsuits man. That's a lot. You can't think all 60 were dismissed on technicalities or by unfair liberal judges. All the rulings are public. Some of the clearest were by Republicans (even Trump) appointees. You can't really think they're all in on some grand conspiracy to steal the election.

It is the truth. A large number of the dismissed suits were brought outside the campaign or Republican Party, but those are being conveniently included in the total.

[inudesu]

It is the truth. A large number of the dismissed suits were brought outside the campaign or Republican Party, but those are being conveniently included in the total.

So you don't think, say, Paxton's lawsuit with all those AGs signed on ought to be considered a lawsuit brought on this topic and lost? Why not?

Or the Kracken lawsuits? Were those about some other election?

And either way, is the contention that EVERY case was either a biased liberal judge in on the scheme and/or a denial/dismissal/withdrawal(?!?!?!) based on a technicality? All X number of them? Which ones count as Trump's losses and which ones were outside of the Republican Party or campaign officially? And isn't this really an argument against the point I think you're making? Like, if the campaign filed and lost 10 cases that'd be pretty convincing even if half were dismissed on standing or laches or something (which as has been pointed out, isn't really a minor technicality - those rules are still an important part of the law and still legally binding and still relevant even if they don't rule on the facts of what happened). But since the campaign or party filed those 10 (or whatever number you pick) and then others filed more lawsuits and lost all of those too - that seems worse. I mean, the percentage isn't worse (0/10 is the same percentage as 0/60) but it's more proof of the point in contention, not less. Or I guess in some summaries, you could concede a minor win here or there for another court to take up the case (in that case, yeah, 1/10 is a lot better than 1/60 so if that's the contention here, you're right - you'd want the accounting done differently for what that's worth).

I don't think I can convince you, but I don't see how the court documents and rulings can be waved away like reporting from the main stream media (which I don't think should be waved away either, but seems to be the kneejerk reaction to any reporting counter to reporting a Trump win).

[arkansasbob]

I wish y'all had been right about this.

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.

[Guisslapp]

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.

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