The best thing democrats could do for themselves right now

[jcgriff2]

He'll fade.

The truth will slowly surface and his popularity will wane as soon as he is out of power. His fans are a fickle bunch.

I don't know about that. I think that as Biden makes mistake after mistake, the voters will begin to second guess their vote for Biden.

 

[Nickyjo]

is to support an independent in-depth study into voter fraud, how the voting machines work and whether it is possible, even designed , into the machines to allow them to skew elections.

this way there would be no doubt, and Trump would lose tons of support, with almost no possibility of a 2024 primary going his way.

if everything is on the up and up then you have no worries, and millions of people will be satisfied with our election process, which will help the country lose the divide that has come between us.

on the other hand, lets see what happens in midterm 2022 , judging by the house losses, if you go trying to EO and pass all of the radical leftist measures without trying to bring the country together and abetting the worries of election fraud of 70 million people.

The problem with your suggestion is how much democrats should give credence to Trumps irresponsible allegations. Do we indulge his narcissistic fantasies? Ok, if it means he will go away. But his record suggests that if the most conservative among us determined that the election is valid, Trump still might not accept it. Why should we be prisoners of his narcissism?

 

[OscarLevant]

I don't know about that. I think that as Biden makes mistake after mistake, the voters will begin to second guess their vote for Biden.

I don't see that happening.

 

[diz]

The standard being addressed was, "People are convicted of it all the time," not zero. Basic English.

The number offered was 1125 over a period of 38 years. Use those math skills to cypher out how an average of less than 30 convictions a year is "all the time".

Yes there's fraud. Yes it should be confronted. No, it's not pervasive and is not what usually wins election.

No, the standard being addressed was “no evidence of voter fraud”.

The post to which I addressed my comment is below:

There are numerous studies into voter fraud. The Associated Press did one yesterday and found no evidence of fraud.

You just need to avoid questionable news sources.

 

[less right]

No, the standard being addressed was “no evidence of voter fraud”.

The post to which I addressed my comment is below:

The standard you addressed may have been no evidence of voter fraud but that wasn't my post. I picked up the conversation where you said it happens all the time so that's the standard I addressed. I made it pretty clear that's what I was addressing.

Too nice a day to waste time arguing about the definition of "is".

 

[smallvoice]

There are numerous studies into voter fraud. The Associated Press did one yesterday and found no evidence of fraud.

You just need to avoid questionable news sources.


.

The AP has become a questionable news source.

 

[diz]

The standard you addressed may have been no evidence of voter fraud but that wasn't my post. I picked up the conversation where you said it happens all the time so that's the standard I addressed. I made it pretty clear that's what I was addressing.

Too nice a day to waste time arguing about the definition of "is".

So, you gave the comment that is objectively not true a pass to make a pedantic, subjective attack on the rebuttal?

But you also don’t have time to argue.

Heh.

 

[Rich2018]

is to support an independent in-depth study into voter fraud, how the voting machines work and whether it is possible, even designed , into the machines to allow them to skew elections.

this way there would be no doubt, and Trump would lose tons of support, with almost no possibility of a 2024 primary going his way.

if everything is on the up and up then you have no worries, and millions of people will be satisfied with our election process, which will help the country lose the divide that has come between us.

on the other hand, lets see what happens in midterm 2022 , judging by the house losses, if you go trying to EO and pass all of the radical leftist measures without trying to bring the country together and abetting the worries of election fraud of 70 million people.

Or just scrap the electoral college.

Have the presidency and vice-presidency decided by majority vote alone.

 

[Visbek]

is to support an independent in-depth study into voter fraud

There was no fraud.

Election officials from both parties, in pretty much every state, explicitly said the elections were clean.

Republican elected officials have spent YEARS looking for election fraud. They almost never find any.

In one of the rare occasions where actual election fraud was committed, it turned out that... yes, it was a Republican who committed fraud, in North Carolina. Go ahead, look it up.

The Trump campaign filed over 30 lawsuits. Almost none of them alleged fraud. Giuliani tried to toss every single ballot in PA, and even he openly admitted in court that the case wasn't alleging any fraud.

There isn't a single person who is currently screaming about "fraud" who would be swayed by any investigations that adhere to reality, rather than the toxic waste of conspiracy theories currently flying around the right-wing echo chamber. That's because it isn't about the sanctity of elections, it's about the inability to face losing an election.

 

[jcgriff2]

The problem with your suggestion is how much democrats should give credence to Trumps irresponsible allegations. Do we indulge his narcissistic fantasies? Ok, if it means he will go away. But his record suggests that if the most conservative among us determined that the election is valid, Trump still might not accept it. Why should we be prisoners of his narcissism?

No one is suggesting that you have to be, if that really is the way mom and dad are and expect you to be, which I find to be very odd.

On the opposite side - Trump had no choice in giving credence to the democrat's credence on a 4+ year investigation into him (Trump) being a Russian Agent/spy against the United States, which sorry - but does not even deserve an answer as it is just so beyond ludicrous. As we know in the end the Muller Report (which hopefully all copies and laptops were thrown out of Air Force 1 at 50,000 feet after they were set ablaze) found absolutely no Russian Collusion whatsoever between the Trump 2016 campaign and collusion with the Kremlin. Trump committed no other crimes (impeachable offenses) as Congress did not even attempt to impeach him on anything but some stupid phone call between Trump and Ukraine, i.e., no impeachable charges from the Muller report were brought forward from the House and sent to the Senate for trial.

The democrats just did not have the evidence - that was never there to begin with.

 

[rickc]

No one is suggesting that you have to be, if that really is the way mom and dad are and expect you to be, which I find to be very odd.

On the opposite side - Trump had no choice in giving credence to the democrat's credence on a 4+ year investigation into him (Trump) being a Russian Agent/spy against the United States, which sorry - but does not even deserve an answer as it is just so beyond ludicrous. As we know in the end the Muller Report (which hopefully all copies and laptops were thrown out of Air Force 1 at 50,000 feet after they were set ablaze) found absolutely no Russian Collusion whatsoever between the Trump 2016 campaign and collusion with the Kremlin. Trump committed no other crimes (impeachable offenses) as Congress did not even attempt to impeach him on anything but some stupid phone call between Trump and Ukraine, i.e., no impeachable charges from the Muller report were brought forward from the House and sent to the Senate for trial.

The democrats just did not have the evidence - that was never there to begin with.

No the democrats had the evidence. They empeached him.

Mitch McConnell and the Republicans refused to remove him from office

 

[jcgriff2]

I don't see that happening.

We will hopefully get that question answered un 2024 unless Harris has gotten to Biden by then first! :0

No the democrats had the evidence. They empeached him.

Mitch McConnell and the Republicans refused to remove him from office

An impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment in criminal law.

Once the impeachment is voted on and a majority YES is obtained, then the impeachment is sent to the Senate for a trial. In Trump's case, Pelosi had obtained the articles of impeachment (the indictment), but then held on to it for about 6 weeks. Very bizarre, especially since we were in the early days of COVID-19, we knew something was going on, et Pelosi held everything up by not submitting the documents to the Senate.

The Democrats did not have the evidence; hence the reason that a majority of senators refused to convict. Mitch was just 1 vote out of 100. It also helped that the Republicans held a majority.

Someone could indict you for murder today. It does not mean it is true. An indictment allows a prosecutor to present HIS and usually only his (i.e., nothing from the defendant or that would help the defendant) to the grand jury. Same in an impeachment. Remember that Pelosi would not let Trump call any witnesses? It was to assure an impeachment would be handed down.

Go back to 1999 for a moment.

Democratic president Bill Clinton had sex in the oval office with Monica Lewinski. Finally, Clinton was forced to take a deposition and swore that he would tell the truth under penalty of perjury.

When asked about Monica, Clinton replied "I never had sex with that woman".

That was a lie. Clinton was then impeached, but lucky for him - the democrats controlled the senate. Clinton was acquitted by 1 or 2 votes when there was no question whatsoever that he was guilty because he lied in the deposition.

Monica Lewinsky not only testified against Clinton, but brought the dress she wore that day in for DNA testing and guess what matched whom? (At least I think they tested this).

The sperm on the dress was a 100% match for Bill Clinton. Case closed; he lied; yet was found not guilty.

I guarantee you that the next time the republicans have the house and there is a dem president - they will find something to impeach him on -- may even be something as stupid as a phone call between 2 world leaders. :0

Imagine that one.

 

[less right]

So, you gave the comment that is objectively not true a pass to make a pedantic, subjective attack on the rebuttal?

But you also don’t have time to argue.

Heh.

The only reason "all the time" becomes subjective is when it doesn't mean really mean "all the time".

I have time to argue, I just don't think there is much to be gained arguing whether 1125 is closer to zero or if 1125 is closer to 'all the time'.

I will concede that 1125 is objectively not zero.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

is to support an independent in-depth study into voter fraud, how the voting machines work and whether it is possible, even designed , into the machines to allow them to skew elections.

this way there would be no doubt, and Trump would lose tons of support, with almost no possibility of a 2024 primary going his way.

if everything is on the up and up then you have no worries, and millions of people will be satisfied with our election process, which will help the country lose the divide that has come between us.

on the other hand, lets see what happens in midterm 2022 , judging by the house losses, if you go trying to EO and pass all of the radical leftist measures without trying to bring the country together and abetting the worries of election fraud of 70 million people.

I think we should always strive to reduce the possibility of voter fraud.

But it is pure fantasy to expect that investigation of this sort will assuage the paranoid delusions of Trump supporters.

Every single time a judge throws out one of Trump's baseless, frivolous lawsuits there is a chorus of, "DEEP STATE JUDGE!!! HE IS IN ON IT TOO!", from the pro-Trump whackos.