"I WON THE ELECTION"!


Does anyone here still think Trump is in touch with reality?

I doubt even Tom would agree with that...
Can just imagine him throwing a toddler tantrum and kicking and screaming on the floor of the Oval Office.

His court challenges are being defeated one by one ;and Chief Justice Roberts has signaled clear enough that he has no appetite for SCOTUS getting involved in the electoral process.

If Sydney Powell has some proof of systemic fraud because of software algorisms either programmed ,or hacked into the Dominion systems she should present the case to the public now . That appears to be the last card Trump has to play.

Quote:

---

Does anyone here still think Trump is in touch with reality?

---

Al Gore tied up the election results for 37 days . That is the benchmark

Trump may have reason to feel cheated as rhetorical evidence suggests there were some irregularities but the margin is too large

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Al Gore tied up the election results for 37 days . That is the benchmark

---

While it is indeed his right to challenge the result, the toxic rhetoric and falsehoods being employed really doesn't do him any favours.
I'm not sure if the level of incitement is actionable, but I'm sure there will be some consequences.

Anybody expecting the dufus to stop fighting because he lost is out of touch with reality. He will continue to sling the red meat just as he always has. Unfortunately that also means a steady diet of his antics for quite some time, and the right wing noise machine has NEVER gone away in the first place.

Curley 72 million people voted for him . If you ask them I believe they would say he should continue the challenges until all the legal options are exhausted . "the toxic rhetoric and falsehoods" like the 4 years of enduring phony charges of stealing the election in 2016 ?

While 72 million voted for him, far more didn't.
As you well know it's possible to win the electron yet lose the popular vote, however in this case he didn't win either.
Trump has a knack of using social media to massively amplify any message he wants, such is the nature of the platform(s).

Quote:

---

While 72 million voted for him, far more didn't.

---

3 or 4 million more . I would not call that 'far more'. That's ok ;keep dismissing almost half the nation's concerns . Trump may have lost but his coat tails were huuge . Of the seven seats that flipped from the GOP to the Dems in 2018, only three now clearly remain in Democratic control. That includes pick ups in the bluest of blue states . California lost Congressional seats to the GOP and NYC did too. This despite Quid's victory and outspending the GOP by a wide margin. So despite the fact that the Dems down ticket ambitions were smashed . We still hear derision about almost a half of the country that the Dems consider toothless rube hayseed yahoos . Quid calls for unity while his coalition seeks blood.

As for social media ; Twitter and Facebook did all they could to suppress the free exchange of ideas . They are now suffering as new forums are being populated with people tired of being censored . btw thanks you for this forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

3 or 4 million more . I would not call that 'far more'. .

---

what it means is Biden got 5% more votes and a very high percentage of registered voters voted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

3 or 4 million more . I would not call that 'far more'. .

---

<br><br>what it means is Biden got 5% more votes and a very high percentage of registered voters voted<br>
<br>

Try almost 6 million more which probably means former repubs switched sides for Biden but stayed loyal locally. That's okay a win is a win and the dufus is defeated. If we turn Georgia blue we win some more and count the turtle face one as a casualty with the dufus. That's not a bad election cycle I would say.

Getting rid of the dufus was a big freaking deal and if repubs are still quaking in their boots from him then that's their problem. You can visit him in jail all you want and send him cash on the books for all I care.

Wonder if he has the pardon for himself ready?

yeah they keep on finding more votes in the trunks of cars .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

If Sydney Powell has some proof of systemic fraud

---

Sydney Powell is a systemic fraud.

Quote:

---

Al Gore tied up the election results for 37 days . That is the benchmark

---

That election was NOT decided by the voters. It was decided by the nutty Scalia who refused to count the ballots cast by voters in Florida. He decided to put his ideologue crony Bush in the White House. Later counting showed Gore the definitive winner. So much for the voting public in the eyes of the Republican cultists.

Quote:

---

Al Gore tied up the election results for 37 days . That is the benchmark

---

That case was different in two respects. One is that he was a liberal dem and thus was treated as believable by the adoring press, and two was that he could demonstrate no voter fraud at all.

Quote:

---

Sydney Powell is a systemic fraud.

---

She is a brilliant lawyer .

Quote:

---

That election was NOT decided by the voters. It was decided by the nutty Scalia who refused to count the ballots cast by voters in Florida.

---

not quite . I have said the case should not have gone to any court especially SCOTUS . States decide elections .

It was the Florida courts that intervened in the election even after a machine recount was done and the legal procedure of the Florida Sec State certified the election.

In this case the Florida Supreme Court ;a court composed entirely of Democrat judges ruled that they thought it was fine for Gore to cherry pick 4 of the biggest Democrat counties in Florida and request a manual recount that was most likely to deliver Gore the election even if he in fact had fewer votes than Bush So Bush took it to SCOTUS .The court decided that yes it was ridiculous to count only select counties and ordered a recount of the entire state. (Bush v. the Palm County Canvassing Board) .

Yes SCOTUS eventually decided it was time to end the charade of recount after recount in it's Bush v Gore ruling . The vote was 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's order violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th . It was not only Scalia making that ruling . Another 5-4 decision (yes all 9 justices voted ) ruled that the state court could not continue to order recounts at this late date. Electors had to be chosen by a specific date ;as they also have to be chosen in this election. These Trump cases cannot go on forever either .

As it turned out ;an independent recount by a news consortium found even more votes for Bush than the final state tally and if the recount had gone on until the Florida Supreme Court's deadline they would not have found enough votes for Gore to make a difference.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/...-recount_04-03

The state legislatures makes the voting rules and they have to be clear BEFORE an election. The problem with 2000 and with many states elections this time is that too many of them had governors and courts changing the rules established before ,during ,and even after the votes .

This election doesn't appear to be headed to any court. Not from lack of effort but lack of evidence.

Pennsylvania will end up in court.

Quote:

---

Pennsylvania will end up in court.

---

Maybe for the same Equal Protection causes . Alito knew that and that is why he ordered that ballots that came in late be segregated . However if PA flips it would still be a Quid -270 Trump -252 Quid victory . Trump needs other states besides PA .

Quote:

---

Not from lack of effort but lack of evidence.

---

Oh there is plenty of evidence . But as I said ;the courts are not really inclined to make decisions on elections unless there is undeniable evidence of illegalities . Most of the evidence is anecdotal however . Does Democrats putting cardboard up on windows during the count prove that they tampered ? It is very suspicious . Does them stopping the count in the dead of night while car loads of Quid ballots are delivered to precincts prove fraud ? It is very suspicious ,but is it enough when Democrat dominated lower courts are going to dismiss any accusation ? Roberts and his poodle Kavanaugh do not want SCOTUS to decide this election. Roberts in more concerned about SCOTUS ' reputation and his standing in the DC cocktail circuit than the integrity of a process that in reality the court should not be involved in deciding .

Quote:

---

Roberts in more concerned about SCOTUS ' reputation and his standing in the DC cocktail circuit than the integrity of a process that in reality the court should not be involved in deciding .

---

If true, then that will prove to be a real disappointment, and not so much just on the issue of this election, but in looking down the road. It would seem to be impossible to put people on the Court that genuinely have a passion for constitutional rule.

yeah he exposed himself with the Obamacare ruling .

Here is what was reported on CBS 'Face the Nation '

Quote:

---

Some of the conservatives, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, deliberately avoid news articles on the Court when issues are pending (and avoid some publications altogether, such as The New York Times). They’ve explained that they don’t want to be influenced by outside opinion or feel pressure from outlets that are perceived as liberal.
But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As Chief Justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the Court, and he also is sensitive to how the Court is perceived by the public.
There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the Court – and to Roberts’ reputation – if the Court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the President himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.
Some even suggested that if Roberts struck down the mandate, it would prove he had been deceitful during his confirmation hearings, when he explained a philosophy of judicial restraint.
It was around this time that it also became clear to the conservative justices that Roberts was, as one put it, “wobbly,” the sources said.
It is not known why Roberts changed his view on the mandate and decided to uphold the law. At least one conservative justice tried to get him to explain it, but was unsatisfied with the response, according to a source with knowledge of the conversation.

---