Giuliani says he's working on Trump's impeachment defense, would argue voter fraud claims

[What if...?]

And... you are further demonstrating my statement. The left wants to deflect, do personal attacks, etc.

Yes - I pointed out issues where states and/or election officials made changes that contradicted the law / constitution. It's not about me 'liking' the changes. These open the door, reducing (or eliminating) transparency in the process, and creating opportunities for fraud. No question it's 'wrongdoing' that could have been avoided.

From here it looks like valiant Americans getting an election done in difficult circumstances and they did such a great job too many people voted for republican liking.

So they turned a possibility into a certainty and ran that up the pole and y'all howled and howled.

They all knew they were lying to you the whole time.

 

[dcsports]

The problem is the facts. We has regular ones. You has alternative ones. You have feelings and beliefs and perspectives cleverly designed go get you to conitnue to demand more evidence then dismiss all of it out of hand and then continue to demand more evidence.

It is currently impossible for millions of Americans to consider any information that doesn't come from their mediasphere. By design.

And we spend our days arguing about pony thoughts and fairy farts.

No, I'm referencing real facts. And I really haven't heard anything disputing this. Not even in this tread. Do you think this was a clean election, with no issues, wrongdoing, actions taken that reduced transparency, etc.? A perfect election with no room for improving the process to make it more fair and transparent?

Those on the left tend to ignore these, deflect, make personal attacks, move goalposts, etc.

 

[JasperL]

And... you are further demonstrating my statement. The left wants to deflect, do personal attacks, etc.

I see, so you're going to ignore my response TWICE, and then assert again that no one wants to discuss your claims.

Yes - I pointed out issues where states and/or election officials made changes that contradicted the law / constitution. It's not about me 'liking' the changes. These open the door, reducing (or eliminating) transparency in the process, and creating opportunities for fraud. No question it's 'wrongdoing' that could have been avoided.

That's vague enough to mean anything, and impossible to address. You did make several claims and I addressed them and you ignored my responses, to give me this stuff....

You assert as fact that these unknown changes in unknown states "violated the law/constitution." Well, the place to lodge those complaints is in the court system. They rejected the claims, about 60 times. And you say, "open the door [for fraud]" but that's not the assertion by Trump and the MAGA morons. The assertion is the election was stolen from Trump, so which claim are you going with? It appears to change from post to post, from fraud, to possible fraud, to rules changes.

And just in a general sense, the GOP legislature in PA changed the law making mail in voting easier. Now the GOP is arguing the changes by the GOP legislature were unconstitutional, because Trump lost. But everyone in PA knew the rules before the election, the election was held under those rules, the playing field was level, treated all candidates equivalently, and Trump was the Biggest Loser. Just in principle, why should that election be thrown out - all 10 million votes or whatever?

The same principle applies to the changes in GA, AZ, etc. If your team knows the rules ahead of time, and either doesn't object, or their objections are dismissed by the courts, which in our system is the final word, then why do you think the proper remedy AFTER YOU LOST THE GAME is to throw out the game entirely and let your buddies declare you the winner? That is what the Trump 'team' wanted - to effectively throw out the entire U.S. election for POTUS and anoint Trump Dear Leader. How do you defend that as a principle?

 

[CaughtInThe]

is it possible that Rudy just ran out of money somewhere along the way?

 

[JasperL]

No, I'm referencing real facts. And I really haven't heard anything disputing this. Not even in this tread. Do you think this was a clean election, with no issues, wrongdoing, actions taken that reduced transparency, etc.? A perfect election with no room for improving the process to make it more fair and transparent?

Those on the left tend to ignore these, deflect, make personal attacks, move goalposts, etc.

Every election since the dawn of time has 'issues' and 'wrongdoing' and in any endeavor involving 50 different states, 50 different sets of laws, thousands of voting precincts, 100s of thousands of volunteers and paid workers, and over 160 million voters can be made better. If that was the effort, no one would object.

You're alleging fraud, etc. but only in the states Dear Leader lost, and if not you, then others, are using this claim to assert with no basis that Biden was illegitimately elected. It's not how to have a civil discussion about improving the system. There are lots of ways to do that. The basic problem in reality is the parties have conflicting goals - Democrats want to make registering and voting easier, so more people vote, and the GOP want to make everything harder, so fewer people vote.

 

[What if...?]

No, I'm referencing real facts. And I really haven't heard anything disputing this. Not even in this tread. Do you think this was a clean election, with no issues, wrongdoing, actions taken that reduced transparency, etc.? A perfect election with no room for improving the process to make it more fair and transparent?

Those on the left tend to ignore these, deflect, make personal attacks, move goalposts, etc.

There is no such thing as a "perfect" election. Never has been. Never will be. Everybody selling you this line knows that. But they sling that lie anyway becssue it lets them pivot to needing to make sure you feel safe that not too many people vote for democrats by looking as far and as long as it takes for anything they can tell you to make you insecure.

 

[dcsports]

From here it looks like valiant Americans getting an election done in difficult circumstances and they did such a great job too many people voted for republican liking.

So they turned a possibility into a certainty and ran that up the pole and y'all howled and howled.

They all knew they were lying to you the whole time.

lol - Nope. In many of the cases, changes were clearly with giving one party an advantage in mind. I'm all in favor of making it easier for people to vote. but there's a correct way to make changes to do that. I'm also a big advocate of a very transparent process, open to observation at every step by both parties. In the cases we're talking about, that didn't happen.

Worth noting, I've not 'howled' about the result - at least not the winner. I have 'howled' about the process that got us here. We shouldn't have all these issues. There shouldn't be room for people to make these accusations. We should know the winner on election night - not stretching out days or weeks later. The blame for this lies squarely with people who didn't follow the process - who cut corners, circumventing or ignoring laws / procedures put in place to prevent it. I don't blame Trump for challenging the results - any more than I blamed Gore for challenging the results in 2000. I blame the people who didn't take the responsibility for providing a fair, clear, and transparent system of voting.

 

[dcsports]

There is no such thing as a "perfect" election. Never has been. Never will be. Everybody selling you this line knows that. But they sling that lie anyway becssue it lets them pivot to needing to make sure you feel safe that not too many people vote for democrats by looking as far and as long as it takes for anything they can tell you to make you insecure.

It's those on the left that are selling this line.

 

[ecofarm]

Rudy stalked, monitored, literally bugged and paid for the infiltration of a US ambassador's security team. He did this with the help of, literally, two Russian thugs. He did this on orders from the President. The President took orders from Putin.

 

[GDViking]

Are you kidding? They avoid the topic like the plague - denying any fraudulent voting, bad practices, or wrongdoing. Likely because the most of the questionable practices were being conducted by democrats. There's probably also an element of satisfaction with the outcome, and a feeling that if they admit to issues that will somehow jeopardize that.

Why is that Republicans believe that only democrats are poll workers???
They're are just as many Republicans in rooms.
They have to be blind or just stupid to miss all this massive fraud...

 

[dcsports]

Every election since the dawn of time has 'issues' and 'wrongdoing' and in any endeavor involving 50 different states, 50 different sets of laws, thousands of voting precincts, 100s of thousands of volunteers and paid workers, and over 160 million voters can be made better. If that was the effort, no one would object.

You're alleging fraud, etc. but only in the states Dear Leader lost, and if not you, then others, are using this claim to assert with no basis that Biden was illegitimately elected. It's not how to have a civil discussion about improving the system. There are lots of ways to do that. The basic problem in reality is the parties have conflicting goals - Democrats want to make registering and voting easier, so more people vote, and the GOP want to make everything harder, so fewer people vote.

That's incorrect. Those states are the ones you hear about the most - they tipped the scales in this election. I think they should 'fix' issues in any state that had them. For example, I pointed out in Harris County (Texas) the county clerk and county judge attempted to redefine a 'polling station' to include where a car drives under a tent awning, separate from the voting from a car "curbside voting" allowed under the law. Big issue with that in Houston.

And the goals you stated aren't correct either. Republican's are all for making it easier to vote - and have pushed measures to do that. They have however insisted (rightly so) that we ensure the integrity of the vote, which generally speaking Democrats show very little concern about.

 

[What if...?]

Fu

lol - Nope. In many of the cases, changes were clearly with giving one party an advantage in mind. I'm all in favor of making it easier for people to vote. but there's a correct way to make changes to do that. I'm also a big advocate of a very transparent process, open to observation at every step by both parties. In the cases we're talking about, that didn't happen.

Worth noting, I've not 'howled' about the result - at least not the winner. I have 'howled' about the process that got us here. We shouldn't have all these issues. There shouldn't be room for people to make these accusations. We should know the winner on election night - not stretching out days or weeks later. The blame for this lies squarely with people who didn't follow the process - who cut corners, circumventing or ignoring laws / procedures put in place to prevent it. I don't blame Trump for challenging the results - any more than I blamed Gore for challenging the results in 2000. I blame the people who didn't take the responsibility for providing a fair, clear, and transparent system of voting.

Funny that you consider voting facilitation as conferring an advantage to one side.

That is saying out loud what we out here already know:

It's not about election integrity. It's about voter suppression.

Republican lose when people vote.

Trump even said the quiet part out loud. Saying that if we do universal mail in voting republicans would never win again. Which other Republicans have said out loud too.

 

[ecofarm]

lol - ok. Stick a pin in that, because there were a lot more documented for this election.

How do people still believe that? The only possible way is if they believe everything Trump says and they never look at any facts.

 

[TomFitz]

Don't forget to check his baggage for White House contraband on the way out. I wouldn't put anything past that sleazy thief.

He’ll make a point of stealing something.

As far as I’m concerned, they can have the Black Mariah pull up the the North portico, load the whole bunch up, haul them to BWI and put them on the first Southwest flight to West Palm or Ft Lauderdale (C Boarding pass, of course), they can Uber it to Mar A Lago from there.

 

[snakestretcher]

No, I'm referencing real facts. And I really haven't heard anything disputing this. Not even in this tread. Do you think this was a clean election, with no issues, wrongdoing, actions taken that reduced transparency, etc.? A perfect election with no room for improving the process to make it more fair and transparent?

Those on the left tend to ignore these, deflect, make personal attacks, move goalposts, etc.

Nothing in life is perfect; elections included. However if we're discussing degrees of imperfection then I'm afraid the onus is on the accuser to demonstrate what degree he finds unacceptable, with examples supported by evidence. A few random incidents cannot be extrapolated to whatever number you have in your head based purely on speculation.

 

[bearpoker]

You avoided the topic.

Present actual evidence instead of speculation and I'll discuss it. So far, you've presented changes in rules as evidence when it's not and claimed that cases dismissed that were about changes in rules as being dismissed for process reasons and not on evidence. You use terms interchangeably and then accuse your opponents of shifting sands.

 

[What if...?]

That's incorrect. Those states are the ones you hear about the most - they tipped the scales in this election. I think they should 'fix' issues in any state that had them. For example, I pointed out in Harris County (Texas) the county clerk and county judge attempted to redefine a 'polling station' to include where a car drives under a tent awning, separate from the voting from a car "curbside voting" allowed under the law. Big issue with that in Houston.

And the goals you stated aren't correct either. Republican's are all for making it easier to vote - and have pushed measures to do that. They have however insisted (rightly so) that we ensure the integrity of the vote, which generally speaking Democrats show very little concern about.

Sure. Limiting drop boxes to one in a huge Texas county of millions surely made it eased to vote.

And your drive in voting example is horrible. Quibbling over minutiae like its relevant. Attempting to disenfranchise eligible voters should be considered unamerican, not patriotic.

But here we are.

 

[snakestretcher]

Present actual evidence instead of speculation and I'll discuss it. So far, you've presented changes in rules as evidence when it's not and claimed that cases dismissed that were about changes in rules as being dismissed for process reasons and not on evidence. You use terms interchangeably and then accuse your opponents of shifting sands.

Seems our thoughts intertwined (#240)...

 

[GDViking]

Don't forget to check his baggage for White House contraband on the way out. I wouldn't put anything past that sleazy thief.

He hasn't been seen in public in a week.
I picture him going back and forth between pouting and running around vandalizing everything be can...

 

[dcsports]

How do people still believe that? The only possible way is if they believe everything Trump says and they never look at any facts.

By looking at what happened, reading, evaluating the source material, etc. People who think there were no problems are just as delusional (if not more so) than those at the other end of the spectrum. The fact we're having this discussion now, because Democrats chose to insert it into the articles of impeachment, highlights this. Not to mention that we didn't have the results for some of these states for days or weeks after the election.

Personally, I've listened to very little that Trump has to say. (Started to type 'nothing' but I've listened to some clips.). I didn't vote for him. Didn't advocate for his re-election. Haven't called for overturning the election. I want to clean up the mess so we don't repeat this in 4 years.

 

[Vadinho]

Trump's defense boils down to this simple Jim Crow tactic: I lost because they counted black votes in cities and we all know you cannot trust black people so make me President.

 

[ecofarm]

By looking at what happened, reading, evaluating the source material, etc. People who think there were no problems are just as delusional (if not more so) than those at the other end of the spectrum. The fact we're having this discussion now, because Democrats chose to insert it into the articles of impeachment, highlights this. Not to mention that we didn't have the results for some of these states for days or weeks after the election.

Personally, I've listened to very little that Trump has to say. (Started to type 'nothing' but I've listened to some clips.). I didn't vote for him. Didn't advocate for his re-election. Haven't called for overturning the election. I want to clean up the mess so we don't repeat this in 4 years.

What a huge load of bs. You're in Trump's pocket. Guess why.

 

[One shot]

Are you saying there was no fraud? No wrongdoing? Or that there was no evidence of it?

I don't think any court has actually evaluated the cases on the merits. (Maybe one or two - one actually did allow an audit of a sample of ballots). Almost all have been dismissed for technical reasons (standing, latches, mootness, etc.) This may work on an emergency basis, and when cases are thrown together quickly. At some point, courts are going to have to start hearing these on the merits.

Strikes me if there is an allegation of a crime and no evidence produced ever, them we are stuck with a forever allegation. I wonder how long forever’s going to continue?

 

[dcsports]

Strikes me if there is an allegation of a crime and no evidence produced ever, them we are stuck with a forever allegation. I wonder how long forever’s going to continue?

Evidence was presented, so, there's that.

 

[One shot]

Evidence was presented, so, there's that.

I am just hayseed country boy. Would you mind posting that evidence?