Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

As expected Trump claims election is being stolen from him

Page 13 of 23 [ 358 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 23  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 69,505
Location: Over there

08 Nov 2020, 7:10 pm

^ :lol:

Rather more seriously, I just found this interesting article.
It really doesn't bode well for Trump's legal challenges if this is what's been going on generally (which wouldn't surprise me).


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

08 Nov 2020, 7:43 pm

Reminds me of this one ...

Image

Cornflake wrote:
Rather like this?

Image


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

08 Nov 2020, 7:51 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
On the other hand.......Trump being dragged out the White House front door, kicking and screaming, would warn my cold, dead heart.


Enjoy the imagery

Image



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

08 Nov 2020, 8:05 pm

If Trump continues to spur his followers to protest and it results in violence then shouldn't he be charged with inciting violence? everyone knows he's lying through his teeth except for the fools still following him like robots.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

08 Nov 2020, 10:34 pm

cyberdad wrote:
If Trump continues to spur his followers to protest and it results in violence then shouldn't he be charged with inciting violence? everyone knows he's lying through his teeth except for the fools still following him like robots.


In the same way that anyone who encouraged BLM supporters to protest and then violence actually occurred were charged\should be charged with inciting that violence? Or are there different rules depending on the "side" the target is on?

Not sure what the basis for the "everyone knows he's lying through his teeth" statement was either (unsurprising lack of specificity\evidence\facts provided to substantiate\evaluate it), nor the attack on a group of people who have a different political leaning, and so support the current President (Difficult not to see calling people "fools" or "robots" as anything other than an attack, particularly as (not unexpectedly) no evidence\facts are provided to support the assertion).

One thing everyone does (or at least should) know: The election results still haven't been officially declared - Who knows what may happen\change between now and when they are...



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

08 Nov 2020, 10:40 pm

Cornflake wrote:
^ :lol:

Rather more seriously, I just found this interesting article.
It really doesn't bode well for Trump's legal challenges if this is what's been going on generally (which wouldn't surprise me).


And certainly an "impartial" article, too, given the following line in the opening paragraph:
Quote:
I volunteered with the Democratic Party of Michigan


Here's a view from "the other side" for a degree of "balance":
https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/first-person-gop-challengers-we-faced-open-intimidation-detroit



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

09 Nov 2020, 1:02 am

Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
If Trump continues to spur his followers to protest and it results in violence then shouldn't he be charged with inciting violence? everyone knows he's lying through his teeth except for the fools still following him like robots.


In the same way that anyone who encouraged BLM supporters to protest and then violence actually occurred were charged\should be charged with inciting that violence? Or are there different rules depending on the "side" the target is on?


I am not aware anyone in democrat party or the BLM leadership were calling for acts of mass violence?



Tempus Fugit
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Oct 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,545

09 Nov 2020, 1:09 am

This is another one of those 'what if' scenarios as opposed to something that's actually happened.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,608
Location: the island of defective toy santas

09 Nov 2020, 1:15 am

can somebody apprise me of the feasibility of trumpy using the courts to time out the process so the electoral college can be bypassed?



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

09 Nov 2020, 1:16 am

Tempus Fugit wrote:
This is another one of those 'what if' scenarios as opposed to something that's actually happened.


I'm guessing there is zero chance Trump will be holed up in the whitehouse after Jan 21st. At this point there is a better chance the sun not rising tomorrow morning.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

09 Nov 2020, 1:17 am

auntblabby wrote:
can somebody apprise me of the feasibility of trumpy using the courts to time out the process so the electoral college can be bypassed?


I asked this already, all I got was wishful thinking



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

09 Nov 2020, 1:20 am

cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
If Trump continues to spur his followers to protest and it results in violence then shouldn't he be charged with inciting violence? everyone knows he's lying through his teeth except for the fools still following him like robots.


In the same way that anyone who encouraged BLM supporters to protest and then violence actually occurred were charged\should be charged with inciting that violence? Or are there different rules depending on the "side" the target is on?


I am not aware anyone in democrat party or the BLM leadership were calling for acts of mass violence?


Trying to work out what "logic" was used here, as the initial quote about Mr Tump did not mention him "calling for acts of mass violence", so why is that required in the case of Democrats\BLM leadership before they can be "charged with inciting violence", unless it was an attempt to deflect from an uncomfortable detail that significant violence did occur with those "protests".

To simplify, what is the difference between:
Quote:
If Trump continues to spur his followers to protest and it results in violence then shouldn't he be charged with inciting violence?

and
Quote:
In the same way that anyone who encouraged BLM supporters to protest and then violence actually occurred were charged\should be charged with inciting that violence?

other than the sides endorsing (or the target of) the protests, of course?



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

09 Nov 2020, 1:27 am

cyberdad wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
can somebody apprise me of the feasibility of trumpy using the courts to time out the process so the electoral college can be bypassed?


I asked this already, all I got was wishful thinking


And yet, 1 minute on DDG (and google would have been similar) got this:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/18/politics/electoral-college-timeline-2020-election/index.html

Which includes this little nugget:
Quote:
December 8

"Safe harbor" to determine election results and assign electors.

Under the Electoral Count Act, this is the date by which states are meant to have counted votes, settled disputes, and determined the winner of their electoral college votes. Governors are supposed to create certificates of ascertainment listing the winner of the election and the slate of electors. In 2000, the Supreme Court ended a targeted recount in Florida because it could not be completed by this safe harbor date.


So, no, it isn't possible to "use the courts to time out the process so the electoral college can be bypassed"....



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,608
Location: the island of defective toy santas

09 Nov 2020, 1:47 am

cyberdad wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
can somebody apprise me of the feasibility of trumpy using the courts to time out the process so the electoral college can be bypassed?


I asked this already, all I got was wishful thinking

that tells me that with the terrible new additions of ACB and the drunk, it is really feasible and likely. i can put nothing, no evil, past this terrible man and his terrible helpers.



Tempus Fugit
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Oct 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,545

09 Nov 2020, 2:06 am

cyberdad wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
This is another one of those 'what if' scenarios as opposed to something that's actually happened.


I'm guessing there is zero chance Trump will be holed up in the whitehouse after Jan 21st. At this point there is a better chance the sun not rising tomorrow morning.


That's not what I was referring to.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

09 Nov 2020, 2:12 am

Brictoria wrote:
[
Quote:
In the same way that anyone who encouraged BLM supporters to protest and then violence actually occurred were charged\should be charged with inciting that violence?

other than the sides endorsing (or the target of) the protests, of course?


Ok perhaps I was being harsh, he "endorses the protests"