The Trump Presidency : Year IV

November 22, 2020, 12:43 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Ripley:
quote:
Originally posted by Keystoner:

Are you done now?--because you've become a complete waste of bandwidth.

Wow, I just deleted my post as the vid was a couple above me. I made valuable points, nearly identical to what D'Souza says, sorry you chose to ignore them and get snarky. And look, I did this without pointless nesting of quotes, so spare the virtue signalling.

Q.E.D.

November 22, 2020, 01:01 PM

az4783054

How about attacking the democrats and their allies who engineered this fraud instead of attacking each other.

November 22, 2020, 01:04 PM

Greymann

More about the fraud.

November 22, 2020, 01:05 PM

slosig

quote:
Originally posted by az4783054:
How about attacking the democrats and their allies who engineered this fraud instead of attacking each other.

Thank you.

November 22, 2020, 01:09 PM

ensigmatic

Improved version of 46and2's idea

November 22, 2020, 01:31 PM

chellim1

To Restore Election Integrity, End Mail-In Vote Fraud
By Bert Peterson

In the recent presidential election, Wisconsin had a high turnout, 72.3 percent, of which Joseph Biden took 49.6 percent — 250,000 more votes than Hillary Clinton in 2016 — and enough to win. For a candidate whose rallies virtually no one attended, and whose political party, in response to recent rioting and looting, was passive, that's pretty good. Or is it?

The answer to that may depend on the kind of ballots that were cast — whether they were cast in person or through the mail. Frank Miele describes the process of the first:

[Y]ou first make an active choice to vote, confirm your identity as a registered voter to a poll worker, then mark your ballot privately but in the presence of other people, and finally hand it off to a poll worker who scans it directly into a vote-counting machine while you watch. In other words, you establish your legal right to vote and have a secure chain of custody of your ballot until it is scanned, which you yourself [and you alone] participate in.

Adam Liptak of the N.Y. Times reports on a portion of mail-in voting:

The [election] board tossed out some ballots because they arrived without the signature required on the outside of the return envelope. It rejected one that said "see inside" where the signature should have been. And it debated what to do with ballots in which the signature on the envelope did not quite match the one in the county's files.

"This 'r' is not like that 'r,'" Judge Augustus D. Aikens Jr. said, suggesting that a ballot should be rejected.

Ion Sancho, the elections supervisor here, disagreed. "This 'k' is like that 'k,' " he replied, and he persuaded his colleagues to count the vote.

As can be seen, this is a very subjective, uncertain process — a far cry from the one described by Miele. But, at least in the example, which was conducted in the presence of a reporter, and in which the officials were perhaps of different parties, the officials appeared to be conscientiously trying to make the correct determination.

But what about determinations made not in the presence of a reporter, or with officials of the same party? To this, Josh Harrow writes:

[It is] far too easy to imagine one-party Democratic machine jurisdictions padding the vote tally for their candidate by mass non-disqualification of mail-in ballots that would otherwise merit closer scrutiny.

Where would such ballots come from? According to J. Christian Adams and Hans Von Spakovsky, it is from the over-inclusion of names in the voting rolls. They elaborate:

There are serious problems with the accuracy of every single state's voter rolls, some far worse than others.

People are registered multiple times. In some states, the dead remain on the rolls as active registrants for years, sometimes decades. Voter rolls are missing basic information like apartment numbers, birthdates and sometimes even full names.

There are other problems as well. Suffice it to say, the opportunity for fraud with mail-in votes is clearly there. If that opportunity has been taken, can we, through a recount, prove it? The answer is no. Once the mail-in ballots are accepted, they are thrown in with the in-person ballots. Even if officials find out later that a dead person sent in a ballot, we don't know how that dead person voted.

So if we find evidence that something in the recent election suggests that there was mail-in voter fraud (and there is such evidence), there's nothing we can do to prove that. Ever.

Although we cannot have a recount that would discover and erase fraudulent mail-in votes, and potentially throw the state electors to Trump, there's one thing that we can do. We can have a re-vote — one that includes early voting and (restricted) absentee voting, protocols to protect against COVID-19, but not mail-in voting. This would not award anything to anyone; it simply would provide a far more trustworthy vote.

If the results of such a re-vote are dramatically different, and in Pres. Trump's favor, it would not necessarily prove that, in the prior election, there had been fraud. In the interval, some voters may have changed their minds, or some of those who mailed their vote might not want to take the trouble to vote in person. The difference would be this — that, as much as is possible, we can trust the results of an in-person vote, as described by Miele; we cannot trust the result of mail-in voting.

Liptak, of the N.Y. Times, relying on election officials, writes:

[Mail-in voting fraud] is vastly more prevalent than ... in-person voting fraud[.] ...

Voting by mail is now common enough and problematic enough that election experts say there have been multiple elections in which no one can say with confidence which candidate was the deserved winner.

In circumstances in which we have, for a variety of reasons, a dubious result and we have the ability to reach a "vastly" more trustworthy result, why would we not do so? Or, from a different angle — in the administration of justice, why would a court, taking due note of vulnerabilities and uncertainties of mail-in voting, and the evidence suggesting fraud in this election, not order a re-vote?

Would that be "legislating from the bench"? As the mail-in laws were not ordered by courts, but enacted by state legislatures, one could argue that it would — unless, that is, the court correctly found that such a law violated the rights of some individual or group.

Under our laws, voting is a right. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution holds that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." This clause has been interpreted to mean that states may not discriminate against out-of-state travelers, which would certainly seem a valid interpretation. The wording of the clause, however, does not limit the clause to that; it can be applied to state laws that affect not just out-of-state travelers, but its own citizens as well.

That said, there are at least two arguments in which this clause might support a challenge to mail-in laws.

1. a) In passing voter laws that, through their vulnerabilities to fraud, needlessly risk the diminishment of votes that are legally cast, states "abridge the privileges of citizens of the United States" under their own purview. b) If the risk is of such a nature that the realization of it cannot be proven, then the party challenging the law does not have the burden of proving that such risk was realized. Instead, those states passing such laws that increase the risk of voter fraud have the burden of proving that such risk was not realized. But since the proof of a negative is impossible, that burden cannot be met, and, therefore, such laws cannot be constitutional.

2. In passing voter laws that, through their vulnerabilities to fraud, needlessly risk the diminishment of votes that are legally cast, states needlessly put the integrity not only of the state elections, but of federal elections at risk. For through federal elections, not only the state, but all other states are affected. If a majority of states became "mail-in" states, they would decide policy to which in-person states would be subject through a process such in-person states may consider corrupt. This seems untenable; for a common democratic enterprise, at least with respect to the potential diminishment of legal voting, there would seem to be a need for a common standard on such issue — one that, based on the Constitution, is defined by the courts. Such a standard would apply to federal elections but (barring adoption of the first argument) not to state elections.

(This argument means not only that some states may challenge mail-in voting; it also means that other states may challenge in-person voting, presumably on the contention of it being a suppression of the vote. While that might be done, there would — at least when challenged states also have early voting and restricted absentee voting — not seem to be an argument to support such a challenge.)

According to the Center for the Study of Federalism, Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist No. 80, wrote that the privileges or immunities clause "may be esteemed the basis of the Union." Yet, the Center notes, this is one of the least developed principles in American constitutional history.

This may be a good time to develop that principle. We very well may never have another opportunity.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.co...d.html#ixzz6eYOvqEwr

November 22, 2020, 01:42 PM

wcb6092

quote:
Originally posted by chellim1:
MOAR KRAKEN!

We have seen just a few of the many affidavits the Trump Team has gathered and plans to file as early as this week, but this one should give you a flavor of how significant the evidence is. It is by Russell James Ramsland, Jr., the expert who persuaded Texas not to buy the Dominion machines used in the disputed states’ balloting. He describes the vulnerabilities of the system he and his colleagues observed, as did Dr. Andrew Appel, Princeton Professor of Computer Science, and after explaining them concludes:

" Based on the significant anomalies and red flags that we have observed, we believe there is a significant probability that election results have been manipulated within the Dominion/Premier System in Michigan."

https://www.courtlistener.com/...3580.7.1_2.pdf%C2%A0

I wonder what the party of science will say about this?

November 22, 2020, 01:43 PM

Dwill104

quote:
Originally posted by chellim1:
MOAR KRAKEN!

We have seen just a few of the many affidavits the Trump Team has gathered and plans to file as early as this week, but this one should give you a flavor of how significant the evidence is. It is by Russell James Ramsland, Jr., the expert who persuaded Texas not to buy the Dominion machines used in the disputed states’ balloting. He describes the vulnerabilities of the system he and his colleagues observed, as did Dr. Andrew Appel, Princeton Professor of Computer Science, and after explaining them concludes:

" Based on the significant anomalies and red flags that we have observed, we believe there is a significant probability that election results have been manipulated within the Dominion/Premier System in Michigan."

https://www.courtlistener.com/...3580.7.1_2.pdf%C2%A0

*sigh*. Some eggheads saying that there is a “probability” of manipulated results does not equate to proof of manipulated results. The courts are going to demand specific proof of fraud, and specifics of which ballots are fraudulent and how many. The problem is that there are many actual legitimate ballots, and courts aren’t just going to throw all of them out on a chance that there might be some fraudulent ballots in the mix. So far Sidney and the dream team haven’t put out much that’s gained actual traction in court, which is the only place that it really matters. I know, it’s just around the corner. Two more weeks. Whatever. Wake me when it’s over.

November 22, 2020, 01:48 PM

sigmonkey

quote:
Originally posted by Dwill104:...
Whatever. Wake me when it’s over.

Nope.

November 22, 2020, 01:54 PM

az4783054

quote:
Originally posted by Dwill104:

*sigh*. Some eggheads saying that there is a “probability” of manipulated results does not equate to proof of manipulated results. The courts are going to demand specific proof of fraud, and specifics of which ballots are fraudulent and how many. The problem is that there are many actual legitimate ballots, and courts aren’t just going to throw all of them out on a chance that there might be some fraudulent ballots in the mix. So far Sidney and the dream team haven’t put out much that’s gained actual traction in court, which is the only place that it really matters. I know, it’s just around the corner. Two more weeks. Whatever. Wake me when it’s over.

The democrats tried to impeach a sitting President and reject a nominee for the Supreme Court based on 2nd hand hearsay. They threw in a few biased, opinionated 'experts' with no direct knowledge.

Those 'eggheads' might be more credible.

November 22, 2020, 02:11 PM

Boss1

Unity!! thru WWII-type 'deprogramming'...this is right up there with 'Truth and Reconciliation Boards'...

And they wonder why 73M citizens aren't buying the unity rhetoric...

https://dailycaller.com/2020/1...es-trump-supporters/

Apologies if this has been previously posted...

Boss

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Boss1, November 22, 2020 03:52 PM

November 22, 2020, 02:22 PM

Balzé Halzé

quote:
Originally posted by Dwill104:
The problem is that there are many actual legitimate ballots, and courts aren’t just going to throw all of them out on a chance that there might be some fraudulent ballots in the mix.

Oh the courts most certainly can and have done that before. There is indeed precedent for it.

November 22, 2020, 02:26 PM

Hangtime

With this high stakes struggle for the control of America. An issue has to be at the top of mind for friend and foe is Trumps physical safety.

With goverment officials of dubious loyalty revealing themselves at every turn one has to wonder about his security detail provided by secret service.

I wonder if Trump has any private personal non-government security people on staff?

November 22, 2020, 02:42 PM

MNSIG

quote:
Originally posted by chellim1:
MOAR KRAKEN!

We have seen just a few of the many affidavits the Trump Team has gathered and plans to file as early as this week, but this one should give you a flavor of how significant the evidence is. It is by Russell James Ramsland, Jr., the expert who persuaded Texas not to buy the Dominion machines used in the disputed states’ balloting. He describes the vulnerabilities of the system he and his colleagues observed, as did Dr. Andrew Appel, Princeton Professor of Computer Science, and after explaining them concludes:

" Based on the significant anomalies and red flags that we have observed, we believe there is a significant probability that election results have been manipulated within the Dominion/Premier System in Michigan."

Unfortunately, when he mixed voter numbers from MN with registrations from MI, his credibility takes a hit. His charts showing the votes being up tp 300% of registrations are in error. Even if the first part about the Dominion machine vulnerability is 100% accurate, his affidavit will be discounted by most readers.

November 22, 2020, 02:55 PM

wcb6092

quote:
Originally posted by Dwill104:

*sigh*. Some eggheads saying that there is a “probability” of manipulated results does not equate to proof of manipulated results. The courts are going to demand specific proof of fraud, and specifics of which ballots are fraudulent and how many. The problem is that there are many actual legitimate ballots, and courts aren’t just going to throw all of them out on a chance that there might be some fraudulent ballots in the mix. So far Sidney and the dream team haven’t put out much that’s gained actual traction in court, which is the only place that it really matters. I know, it’s just around the corner. Two more weeks. Whatever. Wake me when it’s over.

You can never hit a target if you never fire a shot. Why don't we all retreat to our basement? The battle is already lost before the first engagement?

November 22, 2020, 03:12 PM

rat2306

The swamp the President is trying to drain is looking more and more like the Marianas Trench. Whew!

November 22, 2020, 03:17 PM

sjtill

A sharp essay by David Horowitz, posted on powerlineblog.com. There's nothing there we don't already know, but he is especially caustic about the weakness of Republicans:

quote:
FIGHTING WORDS, BY DAVID HOROWITZ
Our friend David Horowitz wrote this essay, which he titled “Fighting Words.” It is a call for freedom-loving Americans to fight back against the totalitarian Left.

By now it should be obvious – even to conservatives – that we are in a war. It is a conflict that began nearly fifty years ago when the street revolutionaries of the Sixties joined the Democrat Party. Their immediate goal was to help the Communist enemy win the war in Vietnam, but they stayed to expand their influence in the Democrat Party and create the radical force that confronts us today. The war that today’s Democrats are engaged in reflects the values and methods of those radicals. It is a war against us – against individual freedom, against America’s constitutional order, and against the capitalist engine of our prosperity.

Democrat radicals know what they want and where they are going. As a result, they are tactically and organizationally years ahead of patriotic Americans who are only beginning to realize they are in a war. The Democrats’ plan to steal the 2020 election was hatched many years ago when Democrats launched their first attacks on Voter I.D.s, and then every effort to secure the integrity of the electoral system. Those attacks metastasized into an all-out assault on Election Day itself with early- and late-voting grace periods, and a flood of 92 million mail-in ballots, hundreds of thousands of which were delivered in the middle of the night to be counted behind the backs of Republican observers after Election Day had passed.

The result of these efforts is that Election Day no longer really exists as a day when the votes are cast and counted. This is a fact that offers generous opportunities for the election saboteurs to do their work. Those saboteurs’ opportunities were greatly enhanced this year with the installation in battle ground states of voting machines specifically designed to calculate how many votes were required to steal an election and then to switch ballots already cast and deliver them to the chosen party. Mail-in ballots were indispensable to the realization of this plan.

I will not dwell at length on the years it took the Republican Party, and American patriots, to recognize what the Democrat Party had become or the threat it posed to our country as an enemy within. Suffice it to say that Republicans can still be heard referring to Democrats as “liberals” when it is obvious even to them that there is nothing liberal about their principles or methods. They are vindictive bigots who are actively destroying the First Amendment in our universities, on the Internet and in our once but no longer free press. Suffice it to note that while Democrats accuse Republicans including the President of being racists and traitors, the response of Republican leaders is this: “Oh, the Democrats are just playing politics.”

This is not “playing” people. It is war. They are trying to kill us politically, and we need to respond accordingly, to fight fire with fire. Today’s Democrat Party is a party of character assassins and racists. Republicans know this but are reluctant to say it. That is how a pathological liar and corrupt political whore like Joe Biden can accuse the choice of 73 million Americans of being a white supremacist and also murdering 220,000 corona virus patients. That’s why Biden and his gunslingers can do so with no consequences – without so much as a wrist slap – from “moderates” and independents, who know better. The Democrats’ ability to intimidate well-meaning Americans is that great.

Is this too blanket a condemnation? Where, then, is the Democrat who was outraged by the four-year Russia collusion hoax and the failed coup and impeachment attempts – all of which accused the president, without a shred of evidence, of treason? Where was the Democrat who dissented from the public lynching of an exemplary public servant, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, over an incident that never happened 37 years ago at a time when he was a high school kid? Where is the Democrat who has condemned the violent street criminals of Antifa and Black Lives Matter who got away with conducting the most destructive civic insurrection in American history, orchestrating mayhem and disrespect for the law that led to the murders of scores of people who happen to have been mainly black?

What follows is a basic vocabulary for understanding the political war that has engulfed us. When it is used by enough Americans who love their country, it will cancel the surreal universe that Democrats’ lies have imposed on us, and the war will be on its way to being won.

Democrats are not democrats; they are totalitarians. They have declared war on the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Electoral College, the Senate, the Supreme Court, the election system, and the idea of civil order. They have called for the Republican President of the United States to be de-platformed and jailed. Their obvious goal is a one-party state that criminalizes dissent. To them, support for such basic necessities as borders and law enforcement are racist. If you oppose their efforts to legalize infanticide, they will condemn you as enemies of women, and if you make videos of their confessions to selling body parts of murdered infants, they will – like Kamala Harris – throw you in jail.

Progressives are not progressive; they are reactionaries. They are out to abolish liberal value systems and create a status hierarchy where race, gender, and sexual orientation define and confine you to an unalterable place in their new social order. If you are white or male or heterosexual or religious – Justice Kavanaugh was all four – you are guilty before the fact.

But if you are a member of a designated (but increasingly imaginary) “victim” group you are innocent even when the facts show you are guilty – like the reprehensible female who lied to Congress in a calculated attempt to destroy Kavanaugh’s life and career. If you are a member of a “victim” group you have an unlimited license to persecute others. Thus, the LGBTQ lobby is currently behind a nation-wide crusade to strip Christians of their First Amendment rights and criminalize their religion. They use their victim status to leverage their hate of people who don’t embrace their agendas, and deploy it to crush them – and only Republicans seem to care.

Identity politics is a pure form of racism, yet Trump is the only Republican I’m aware of who has had the political spine to call a Democrat a racist. Identity “wokism” is a totalitarian politics because it encompasses every aspect of life, down to the pronouns one is ordered to use. The progressive police state will leave no space free.

Racists and aspiring totalitarians are what Democrats have become. The only moral principle they are guided by is the old Bolshevik saw, “the ends justify the means.” They will say anything however false and condone anything, however criminal, which advances their goal of maximum power.

Since race is the principal weapon wielded by Democrats, this is most evident in their claim that there is “systemic racism” in America, which needs to be rooted out even if it means destroying the very foundations of law and order. When two Republican canvassers refused to certify the election result in Detroit – a city once the richest in America but now mainly black and poor thanks to fifty-nine years of misrule by Democrats – they were accused of “systemic racism.” This charge and the accompanying threats by the Democrat mob were so intimidating the two withdrew their objections. But if there was in fact election fraud in Detroit, to object to it is not by any stretch of the imagination “systemic racism.” To believe otherwise is to believe that black people, due to their skin color, are incapable of committing election fraud. How racist is that?

“Systemic racism” is an assertion made reflexively by Democrats that is never accompanied by evidence. For good reason. Systemic racism has been outlawed in America since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If there were actual instances of systemic racism in 2020, there would be lawsuits – plenty of them. Even making the racist assumption, which the Identity Politics crowd does make, that all white people are white supremacists by dint of their skin color, there are tens of thousands of black lawyers, prosecutors, district attorneys, attorneys general, and elected officials who would be filing lawsuits over a practice that is illegal. You never hear of massive lawsuits over systemic racism, because “systemic racism” is a myth. The myth lives because it is an indispensable weapon wielded by Democrats to advance their anti-democratic agendas and quests for power.

But the only reason Democrats are able to do this so successfully – even going so far as to justify the arson, looting and general destruction in more than 600 American cities this summer – is because Republicans, and conservatives generally, are too cowardly to confront them. This war will continue until patriotic Americans summon the courage to call Democrats the racists, liars, character assassins and aspiring totalitarians that they actually are. And to do so in so many words. Blowback works.

Link

November 22, 2020, 03:37 PM

Ackks

^^ which is another problem because the Dems may take the two GA seats because people are tired of the GOP.

November 22, 2020, 03:42 PM

braillediver

I haven't seen this here yet?

quote:
I Was Right: Trump Team is Focusing on Constitutional Issues, Not Just Fraud, in Election Suits

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3xzO9v1BR0

November 22, 2020, 04:32 PM

EZ_B

Link to original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...2Q&feature=emb_title