Trump Had Role in Weighing Proposals to Seize Voting Machines

[Cork]

You're right. I noticed this phenomenon last March, that trump supporters will deny any simple fact that hurts trump, and they will repeat any lie that they think helps him . In December I realized trump supporters are uninformed about the facts. It's not about them denying the facts, they don't even know the facts.
I'm not trying to humiliate anyone, this is no trap. But I figured other folks will wander through these threads and they can see for themselves how incredibly absurd the support for trump has become.

Nope he knows Trump tried to get Pence to reject the votes but won't say how wrong that is.

Trying to justify something illegal buy saying"Pence didn't do it" is a terrible defense.

 

[pnut]

How many voting machines were seized by Trump or his minions?

There in lies the problem with commenting on articles that are little more than opinion and speculation. It starts with a premise but fails to back up the premise with fact.

 

[The Mark]

How many voting machines were seized by Trump or his minions?

I don't think any.

But that they were even considering it is problem enough.

 

[code1211]

Hilarious watching you say trump is not only a criminal but a failure too and then celebrate it.

I didn't say that.

 

[poweRob]

I didn't say that.

Yeah you did...

How many voting machines were seized by Trump or his minions?

This attempt at trying to weasel out of criminalilty is exactly that. You are admitting criminal intent and attempt but trying to give a pass because the criminal failed in his attempt.

 

[NewfieMom]

I don't think any.

But that they were even considering it is problem enough.

They didn't just consider it; they attempted it, but were thwarted by other government officials!

 

[code1211]

I posted multiple examples and have posted about specific people and events. I have posted detailed explanations to you.

There are real world facts and resulting opinions.

Agreeing on what the facts are is often the difficulty in discussions in this forum.

Opinions on what is fact and what is conjecture or opinion seems to be the basis of much of the arguing here.

 

[code1211]

That tweet says it. That's the message. I'm not sure you understand what happened. In that tweet trump is telling pence to do something unconstitutional. There's no part of the constitution or code where a VP can send slates back to the state legislature . If you don't believe that you will have to quote the law.
I am posting this to you because it's as much a part of the real world as you are.

Did Trump send that Tweet specifically to Pence?

 

[code1211]

Those would be two different crimes. Both are crimes. For a good reason. We don't want people trying to break the law or openly defy the constitution.

Is it good for a president to attempt to defy the constitution? Should Biden attempt the same thing in 2024? Why won't all future presidents do whatever they can, and force whatever actions necessary to remain in power, regardless of the actual and true election results?

Would that make elections pointless?
Is that we expect from a president?

Do you want presidents in our future to obey the constitution and the laws of our country?

Is donald trump above the law?

Biden has attempted to violate the constitution numerous times. The Vaccine mandate is only one example.

Both thinking about dong something illegal and talking about doing something illegal are crimes?

The Bible talks about lusting after another "in the heart" is as sinful as actually acting on the thought. Is every man who looks at the long lean legs of some actress on the Red Carpet guilty of rape?

Is every man who talks about their desire to "know" some woman they saw on TV or in a movie also guilty of rape?

I'm afraid the bar you set is a little lower than the one prescribed by our laws.

 

[soap box]

There are real world facts and resulting opinions.

Agreeing on what the facts are is often the difficulty in discussions in this forum.

Opinions on what is fact and what is conjecture or opinion seems to be the basis of much of the arguing here.

Are you saying that nothing is true unless you say it's true?

Is a fact subject to your approval first before it becomes true?

Does it make sense to pick which facts we like best?

Let's talk about my neighbor. He thinks that it's his opinion that A is a fact, but his opinion is also that B is not a fact. He's entitled to his opinion right? Can't touch that, it's his opinion. And his opinion is that the fact B is not true. But A is.

 

[code1211]

I included that part of his text to be fair but that is exactly the problem. At that point in time , the court cases had been exhausted, heads of the DOJ, CISA and FBI declared that they couldn't find any evidence of fraud. And very importantly, no state legislature had reconvened because there was no political will at the state level to change their EC slate. All his legal and constitutional means of remaining in office were already over. He thought his only chance was to have Mike Pence defy the constitution.

It seemed like they always included the word "widespread" before they indicated that the fraud they were discussing was not found.

The legal guidelines that were imposed after the campaign season was already well underway and the primaries were already conducted were changed in mid stream.

Eliminating any process to verify voter ID was a legal move that was obviously shady and has been made illegal in many states.

 

[soap box]

Biden has attempted to violate the constitution numerous times. The Vaccine mandate is only one example.

Both thinking about dong something illegal and talking about doing something illegal are crimes?

The Bible talks about lusting after another "in the heart" is as sinful as actually acting on the thought. Is every man who looks at the long lean legs of some actress on the Red Carpet guilty of rape?

Is every man who talks about their desire to "know" some woman they saw on TV or in a movie also guilty of rape?

I'm afraid the bar you set is a little lower than the one prescribed by our laws.

If I am tempted and I act on it that's a sin. If I am tempted and I refuse to cave in, then there's nothing to confess. But if I try to attempt to commit adultery, even as much as I tried, it didn't actually happen, I would consider myself sinful since I tried. Just because I didn't have an affair, but I acted to attempt it, I would not be innocent.
Ok but the law works differently.
The law is not the same . We don't want people attempting arson. It's more than just wanting a house to not burn down. The danger and repercussions of the arson is so permanent and traumatic that we don't want people even to think they will be innocent if they try and fail.

I think your rape analogies are exaggerations.

If the Maker would intervene and reveal sinners to us , then we wouldn't need courts of law. Fallen world yes?

 

[code1211]

Yeah trump thought that but there were no state legislatures , not a single one, that reconvened, and not a single state legislature told white staff that it would happen. He had no reason to believe the states were going to change their EC slates.

That part where's

What Trump thought is not in your knowledge. Only what he did.

 

[soap box]

It seemed like they always included the word "widespread" before they indicated that the fraud they were discussing was not found.

The legal guidelines that were imposed after the campaign season was already well underway and the primaries were already conducted were changed in mid stream.

Eliminating any process to verify voter ID was a legal move that was obviously shady and has been made illegal in many states.

I already posted to you a week ago that trump was stuck before January 6 because no one who was in a position to declare a summary of the election would agree with his fraud claims.

Tell Dan Patrick, he might have a prize for your info.

If I was a judge in a court of law I would say for you to cough up the evidence or get out.

 

[soap box]

What Trump thought is not in your knowledge. Only what he did.

Well you can read the words and watch the videos as well as anyone else.

Do we want a president who tried to do a Green Bay sweep around the constitution?

 

[code1211]

I don't think any.

But that they were even considering it is problem enough.

After the vote was already conducted, why would examining the voting machines be problematic?

 

[mike2810]

After the vote was already conducted, why would examining the voting machines be problematic?

- Who do you want to examine the voting machines?
- Did the voting machines pass audit checks and verification before and after the elections?

- A better question would be what reason is there to examine machines that already have been certified and checked before and after an election?
- How many times do you want machines to be examined?

 

[soap box]

After the vote was already conducted, why would examining the voting machines be problematic?

Examining voting machines is fine, but it's not legal to simply make an edict and go take them.

In what post have I EVER stated that a VP "unilaterally reject EC slates"?

Pro tip: I never posted this.

You are arguing against points that I have never presented.

The "illegal crackpot dumbass theory" that you imagine was employed was never employed.

Why do you continue to rail on this idiotic and fantasy world stupidity?

Ok , let's make it clear, can a VP reject EC slates by themselves?

Can a VP send the slates back to the legislatures by themselves?

Does the VP have that authority, start with yes or no and get to the point.

 

[The Mark]

After the vote was already conducted, why would examining the voting machines be problematic?

I don't think they were only going to examine them.
I think they were going to change the result.

 

[code1211]

Yeah you did...

This attempt at trying to weasel out of criminalilty is exactly that. You are admitting criminal intent and attempt but trying to give a pass because the criminal failed in his attempt.

Your interpretation of the reality around you leaves confusion.

 

[code1211]

Are you saying that nothing is true unless you say it's true?

Is a fact subject to your approval first before it becomes true?

Does it make sense to pick which facts we like best?

Let's talk about my neighbor. He thinks that it's his opinion that A is a fact, but his opinion is also that B is not a fact. He's entitled to his opinion right? Can't touch that, it's his opinion. And his opinion is that the fact B is not true. But A is.

Your response demonstrates exactly what i posted but in a confrontationally aggressive way.

 

[code1211]

If I am tempted and I act on it that's a sin. If I am tempted and I refuse to cave in, then there's nothing to confess. But if I try to attempt to commit adultery, even as much as I tried, it didn't actually happen, I would consider myself sinful since I tried. Just because I didn't have an affair, but I acted to attempt it, I would not be innocent.
Ok but the law works differently.
The law is not the same . We don't want people attempting arson. It's more than just wanting a house to not burn down. The danger and repercussions of the arson is so permanent and traumatic that we don't want people even to think they will be innocent if they try and fail.

I think your rape analogies are exaggerations.

If the Maker would intervene and reveal sinners to us , then we wouldn't need courts of law. Fallen world yes?

You present a good identifying seperator in your post.

LAWS are a product of society.

If the action was not taken and the society was not affected, then the law was not broken.

What you do "in your heart" is between you and your Maker.

 

[code1211]

I already posted to you a week ago that trump was stuck before January 6 because no one who was in a position to declare a summary of the election would agree with his fraud claims.

Tell Dan Patrick, he might have a prize for your info.

If I was a judge in a court of law I would say for you to cough up the evidence or get out.

Legal means nether ethical nor right.

All it means is legal.

 

[code1211]

Well you can read the words and watch the videos as well as anyone else.

Do we want a president who tried to do a Green Bay sweep around the constitution?

Now you're imagining a Power Sweep run by Trump?

You are reaching, but that is okay.

A man's reach should exceed his grasp or what's a Heaven for?

 

[code1211]

- Who do you want to examine the voting machines?
- Did the voting machines pass audit checks and verification before and after the elections?

- A better question would be what reason is there to examine machines that already have been certified and checked before and after an election?
- How many times do you want machines to be examined?

I would like voting machines with computerized capabilities to be outlawed.

How often should they be examined? I don't know. Is there a standard in place that defies how often they are checked?

Again, why does merely checking a thing cause such outrage?