USA elections 2020 - 2021

[conon394]

FEC Chairman asserts there is evidence of election fraud:

https://justthenews.com/politics-pol...ing-legitimate

Also: Dominion has closed its offices in Denver and Toronto as well as failing to show up for a congressional hearing in Pennsylvania after promising to show. They lawyered up instead.

or courtesy of USA today

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ty/6332242002/

[Cope]

Its not for me and as your own source indicates Iran is still far off from the capability to build a bomb. Still no evidence Iran actively is developing a nuclear weapon.

Cool, Iran's nuclear activities are of no interest to me. Just its behavior in the Middle East.

Terrorism and threats to a US ally are definitely the US's concern. I'll remind you Hezbollah alone possess hundreds of thousands of missiles are rockets. They are no small threat.

Cool but i never once mentioned any of those countries. I mentioned Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. Is Iraq destabilizing those countries not of your concern?

Your interlocutor has openly argued that Iran’s use of force against the US and its allies is justified and that the regime has a “right” to destabilize the Middle East in its own, theocratic, despotic interests (including by aiding and abetting terrorism).

This sort of rationale – which is almost exclusively predicated on whataboutery – apparently passes as a “progressive” view on foreign policy.

[Gaidin]

or curtsy of USA today

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ty/6332242002/

I'll say it again, County Boards file with the Secretary of State in PA on the 23rd by Noon. Recounts or Re-canvasses must be finished and submitted by either the 24th or 25th depending. By noon. If those are happening, they're doing a wonderful job keeping them out of the national news. Somebody really needs to rev up that court case with an adrenaline shot of evidence. STAT.

[Love Mountain]

Your disagreement with factual analysis doesn’t falsify anything.

You don't have a factual analysis.

It’s not sentiment. It was cited and quoted directly.

The frequency with which something is cited, is not what makes something true or factual or informed.

Your interlocutor has openly argued that Iran’s use of force against the US and its allies is justified and that the regime has a “right” to destabilize the Middle East in its own, theocratic, despotic interests (including by aiding and abetting terrorism).

Every state has a right to pursue its national interest. My dis-interest in Iran's activities doesn't stem from a hypothetical belief that Iran has a "claim" or "right" to any particular activity in the region. It stems from the relevance it bears to actual US interests.

This sort of rationale – which is almost exclusively predicated on whataboutery – apparently passes as a “progressive” view on foreign policy.

Absurd, even if we were to entertain the validity of your strawman, such thinking is based on simple history and an understanding of realpolitik that goes beyond foolish neo-conservative demagoguery that has infected modern discourse.

[Lord Thesaurian]

You don't have a factual analysis.

This isn’t true no matter how many times you repeat it.

The frequency with which something is cited, is not what makes something true or factual or informed.

The statistical analysis I cited and quoted is factual. Your gainsaying isn’t an argument.

[Love Mountain]

This isn’t true no matter how many times you repeat it.

You're right, the veracity of my statement isn't based on how many times I repeated it. It's true because it is easily observable.

The statistical analysis I cited and quoted is factual. Your gainsaying isn’t an argument.

Like I said in post #2626, the data you presented is completely disconnected from the points you made in post #2608. After you understand that, we could also go into how we have little data to work with, aside from particularly unreliable exit polls to even make your point work in the first place.

[alhoon]

I hope the people now understand better just how much of a menace Trump administration was. His harm was not only to the American democracy, the climate and pluralistic political ideologies dominating the world...he was one of the main reasons for whole world pluging into dictatorships that ruined the lives of many.

While I agree that Biden is better to the world than Apathetic Trump that let the Pax Americana wither... to be fair, for the American voter, what happens in some near-middle-east country without oil is secondary to what happens in their country and their area. CoVID-19, economy, unemployment, security, immigration etc are IMO far more serious issues for American votes than what happens in far-away countries.

[conon394]

I'll say it again, County Boards file with the Secretary of State in PA on the 23rd by Noon. Recounts or Re-canvasses must be finished and submitted by either the 24th or 25th depending. By noon. If those are happening, they're doing a wonderful job keeping them out of the national news. Somebody really needs to rev up that court case with an adrenaline shot of evidence. STAT.

OT but for as much as I love spell check sometimes I hate it.

[Coughdrop addict]

Trumpers, you have every right to contest the results of this election. But at least admit WHY you are contesting it. It's not because you believe Trump won. It is because you WANTED him to win and he didn't. That's why when each of team Trump's 30+ legal challenges got laughed out of court you ignored it, instead moving onto the next "absolute proof".

Tomorrow you will be screaming about some ballot printing operation in a pizza parlor basement that 'stole the election" and is powered by baby blood or some other conspiracy BS you read somewhere. Anything to ignore the truth for a minute longer. But at some point you will have to make a choice. America or Trump, which one has your loyalty?

[Lord Thesaurian]

You're right, the veracity of my statement isn't based on how many times I repeated it. It's true because it is easily observable.

Your denials in place of an argument against factual analysis are indeed easily observable.

Like I said in post #2626, the data you presented is completely disconnected from the points you made in post #2608. After you understand that, we could also go into how we have little data to work with, aside from particularly unreliable exit polls to even make your point work in the first place.

You falsely claimed in post 2626 that the factual analysis I presented in 2608 “has absolutely no relevance to how progressives "hurt" mainstream Democrats in elections.” Your assertion is false given that the cited analysis specifically demonstrates that “as districts become safer for Democratic candidates, those incumbents can adopt more liberal positions. Meanwhile, other incumbents felt they needed to adopt more moderate positions because of the competitiveness of their districts. This would seem to support the moderates’ argument that the national party brand hurt their chances.”

[Love Mountain]

Your denials in place of an argument against factual analysis are indeed easily observable.

You're the one making denials.

You falsely claimed in post 2626 that the factual analysis I presented in 2608 “has absolutely no relevance to how progressives "hurt" mainstream Democrats in elections.” Your assertion is false given that the cited analysis specifically demonstrates that “as districts become safer for Democratic candidates, those incumbents can adopt more liberal positions.

He says without telling us how that "analysis" is relevant to his assertion. Like you said, you can repeat that line as often as you like, it doesn't make it true. Your "analysis", has nothing to do with why those incumbents lost.

Meanwhile, other incumbents felt they needed to adopt more moderate positions because of the competitiveness of their districts. This would seem to support the moderates’ argument that the national party brand hurt their chances.”

Those two sentences are at odds with each other, as is your entire argument. Moderates didn't run a progressive campaign in competitive district, they got to run exactly the campaign they wanted, a moderate one. The fact that they lost has little to nothing to do with anything progressives have done, and nothing in your post suggests otherwise. Joe Biden ran against Medicare for all. Joe Biden ran against Defund the Police. The DNC party platform is explicitly moderate and contains the phrase "Medicare for All" once in a one hundred pages.

So again, until the actual relevant voter data is out, you have no case against progressives, and a much bigger case against Democratic candidates who ran campaigns that failed to generate the votes they needed.

[Lord Thesaurian]

You're the one making denials.

He says without telling us how that "analysis" is relevant to his assertion. Like you said, you can repeat that line as often as you like, it doesn't make it true. Your "analysis", has nothing to do with why those incumbents lost.

Those two sentences are at odds with each other, as is your entire argument.

Again, not true. Your false claims about the cited analysis merely reflect on the vacuousness of your rhetoric.

Moderates didn't run a progressive campaign in competitive district, they got to run exactly the campaign they wanted, a moderate one.

Strawman.

The fact that they lost has little to nothing to do with anything progressives have done, and nothing in your post suggests otherwise. Joe Biden ran against Medicare for all. Joe Biden ran against Defund the Police. The DNC party platform is explicitly moderate and contains the phrase "Medicare for All" once in a one hundred pages.

So again, until the actual relevant voter data is out, you have no case against progressives, and a much bigger case against Democratic candidates who ran

campaigns that failed to generate the votes they needed.

As I said, your disagreement is not an argument against the cited statistical analysis.

[B. W.]

Trumpers, you have every right to contest the results of this election. But at least admit WHY you are contesting it. It's not because you believe Trump won. It is because you WANTED him to win and he didn't. That's why when each of team Trump's 30+ legal challenges got laughed out of court you ignored it, instead moving onto the next "absolute proof".

Tomorrow you will be screaming about some ballot printing operation in a pizza parlor basement that 'stole the election" and is powered by baby blood or some other conspiracy BS you read somewhere. Anything to ignore the truth for a minute longer. But at some point you will have to make a choice. America or Trump, which one has your loyalty?

You're just repeating fake news. Trump's campaign has three suits at this time; all are active or being amended. All those other suits are by individuals or other parties. The campaign s going to file more suits Monday or Tuesday.

If you really wanted to know what's going on you would find another news source.

[Love Mountain]

Again, not true. Your false claims about the cited analysis merely reflect on the vacuousness of your rhetoric.

Comical, considering the lack of connection between the said "analysis" and the points it claims to make.

Strawman.

This accusation makes no sense in the given context. Nobody strawmanned you.

As I said, your disagreement is not an argument against the cited statistical analysis.

The argument against your analysis was the disconnect between the said analysis and the points it purports to make. My "disagreement" is a different issue entirely.

[irontaino]

Trump is living in Groundhog Day, loses Pennsylvania again.

In a scathing ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Brann criticized the lack of evidence the Trump campaign presented to support its argument to potentially disenfranchise every voter in the commonwealth who cast a ballot in the 2020 elections — nearly 7 million in all.

Brann noted that the less than two-week-old case developed a "tortured procedural history" that included a parade of lawyers for the campaign, shifting legal arguments to avoid clashing with a federal appeals court ruling, and an eleventh-hour motion to delay a hearing.

[B. W.]

Trump is living in Groundhog Day, loses Pennsylvania again.

Brann is an activist judge appointed by Obama. Just say'n. His ruling is not surprising.

...

In other news, one of the suits filed by a private citizen in Georgia that was dismissed, is going to Appeals Court. This is one of the suits the press has been going on about claiming that they were filed by the Trump campaign.

Unfortunately, for the news media the citizen who filed the suit is one of the most prominent and famous lawyers in the country.

Here is a 30 minute interview he gave in reference to his law suit and where it is going. It is well worth a lsiten to anyone who thinks this thing is over. It's just getting started:

https://therightscoop.com/audio-lin-...d-it-is-solid/

[Gigantus]

Tomorrow you will be screaming about some ballot printing operation in a pizza parlor basement that 'stole the election" and is powered by baby blood or some other conspiracy BS you read somewhere.

Ballots counted in Germany by a Venezuelan company? That was lame. Any true American knows that Biden contracted the Klingons, who, under cover of their cloaking devices, removed millions of ballots in favor of Trump before counting. Proof? He lost the count, didn't he?

In the meantime the lesson continues in how far a determined president can and will undermine the electoral process, and more importantly, the trust in it. By now the question mark over whether the Electoral College will confirm the official results grows ever larger. It happened twice before, with inconsequential result change, so it's not a question if it could happen - rather if the current efforts will be effective enough to change the actual counting results.
And wasn't there the Republican controlled Senate that finally has to ratify everything? Or did I get that last one wrong?

It's still a long way before the fat lady sings.

[irontaino]

Brann is an activist judge appointed by Obama. Just say'n. His ruling is not surprising.

Sure, that's the only reason the case was thrown out. It couldn't possibly be because it was frivolous and was yet another Trump claim with literally 0 evidence.

[TheDarkKnight]

Brann is an activist judge appointed by Obama. Just say'n. His ruling is not surprising.

...

???

Judge Brann is a conservative who has been involved with the NRA, Federalist society, and the PA State GOP

Let me guess...Just a RINO?

I must say, I am rather enjoying the mental gymnastics from the conservatives since it's not only liberal judges overturning Trump's flaccid lawsuits. Pretty sure a Trump appointed judge in Georgia just dismissed one of his lawsuits too.

What is the score now? 1 win and 34 losses? It's getting difficult to keep track of the hilarity that is the continuing meltdown from the Trump cult. It's like watching Trump lose every day, over and over.

Edit: And why the hell are you upset that a judge declined to overturn an entire state's worth of votes because Trumpy is upset at losing? How far are you willing to go here?

[B. W.]

???

Judge Brann is a conservative who has been involved with the NRA, Federalist society, and the PA State GOP

Let me guess...Just a RINO?

I must say, I am rather enjoying the mental gymnastics from the conservatives since it's not only liberal judges overturning Trump's flaccid lawsuits. Pretty sure a Trump appointed judge in Georgia just dismissed one of his lawsuits too.

What is the score now? 1 win and 34 losses? It's getting difficult to keep track of the hilarity that is the continuing meltdown from the Trump cult. It's like watching Trump lose every day, over and over.

Edit: And why the hell are you upset that a judge declined to overturn an entire state's worth of votes because Trumpy is upset at losing? How far are you willing to go here?

Hilarious! We all know how Obama just loved appointing Constitutionalist judges. Too funny.

Anyway, if you had watched the press briefing that wasn't covered by the Biden Media this just means it goes to a higher court.