Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm not a Conservative. Neither is Trump.

---

ORLY? Describe what you are.

---

Ask Ted's NeoCon buddies behind The Lincoln Project if they're happy with my Trump vote.

What have you done today to earn your place in this crowded world? :)

---

So, you don't know. Guess we'll just add that to the giant mountain of things you don't know.

An intellectual and emotional baby.

---

Quote:

---

I don't feel the need to limit myself with labels that dummies such as yourself need to wear like badges in order to function in the real world.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:

Quote:

---

I don't feel the need to limit myself with labels that dummies such as yourself need to wear like badges in order to function in the real world.

---

You don't feel the need to know what you're talking about, show evidence, or believe facts, either. You're not a conservative or a liberal. Just a baby.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Once a political party gets into the habit of rejecting facts it doesn’t want to hear, one fact it’s bound to reject sooner or later is the fact that it lost an election. In that sense there’s a straight line from, say, the Republican embrace of climate denial to the party’s willingness to go along with Trump’s attempts to retain power.

And the GOP’s previous history of dealing with inconvenient reality gives us a pretty good idea about when the party will accept Joe Biden as the legitimate winner of the 2020 election — namely, never.

---

Pray tell... when will Democrats deal with the inconvenient reality that Trump has been the legitimate winner of 2016?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

I hope that THIS time a proper investigation is done, and that as a result the vote becomes more secure and reliable, because only cheaters want a system that can be cheated

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:


If democrats* don't do any different, how are they any better?
And when Biden* fails to keep his promises - or even promote them - I'll be happy to laugh at his skinny saggy ass parading all over town in his New Clothes™.

---

Quote:

---

SIGNYM:

I hope that THIS time a proper investigation is done, and that as a result the vote becomes more secure and reliable, because only cheaters want a system that can be cheated

SECOND Sorry to tell you, but the investigation was done. What were the results? That electronic voting machines cannot be audited and won't be switched to paper ballots, which can be audited:

A fundamental flaw of direct-recording voting machines—that is, ones where you pull the lever on an old mechanical machine or you touch the touch screen on a modern one—all of those machines end up being completely impossible to audit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

SIGNYM:

I hope that THIS time a proper investigation is done, and that as a result the vote becomes more secure and reliable, because only cheaters want a system that can be cheated

SECOND Sorry to tell you, but the investigation was done. What were the results? That electronic voting machines cannot be audited and won't be switched to paper ballots, which can be audited:

A fundamental flaw of direct-recording voting machines—that is, ones where you pull the lever on an old mechanical machine or you touch the touch screen on a modern one—all of those machines end up being completely impossible to audit.

---

Then you've made my case for me: a vote that can't be audited is inadmissible as evidence of anything, even of the result.

But, yanno , they CAN investigate the irregularities. Been audited many times, SECONDRATE. Had our chain of custody reviewed, data photocopied, samples split, filled out questionnaires, had technical experts walk the lab, even done analyses under direct observation. It's called a SYSTEMS AUDIT.

How long did Mueller grind on every fine detail of a hoax? How long did it take to pursue all of the problems of the Boeing Max?

Don't you think our voting system deserves as much scrutiny?

---

Quote:

---

SIGNYM:

I hope that THIS time a proper investigation is done, and that as a result the vote becomes more secure and reliable, because only cheaters want a system that can be cheated

SECOND Sorry to tell you, but the investigation was done. What were the results? That electronic voting machines cannot be audited and won't be switched to paper ballots, which can be audited:

A fundamental flaw of direct-recording voting machines—that is, ones where you pull the lever on an old mechanical machine or you touch the touch screen on a modern one—all of those machines end up being completely impossible to audit.
SIGNY Then you've made my case for me: a vote that can't be audited is inadmissible as evidence of anything, even of the result.

But, yanno , they CAN investigate the irregularities. Been audited many times, SECONDRATE. Had our chain of custody reviewed, data photocopied, samples split, filled out questionnaires, had technical experts walk the lab, even done analyses under direct observation. It's called a SYSTEMS AUDIT.

How long did Mueller grind on every fine detail of a hoax? How long did it take to pursue all of the problems of the Boeing Max?

Don't you think our voting system deserves as much scrutiny?

SECOND; Scrutiny? Is that the sum total of your concerns? Especially when every county in the USA does their voting different than every other? That was always the wrongest possible way to design and run a system. You always make me laugh, Signym, at your high mindedness and abstractions that don't even get close to grubby/greasy/muddy reality of machines. The voting system is just another machine that was poorly designed. But the erratic nonsense that happens in law/banking/finance/government/bureaucracies run by people who obviously understand only words and very little about machines or how anything digital, mechanical, electrical or hydraulic works has always amused me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Politicians aren't clueless, they're CORRUPT. The investigations won't be conducted by corrupt politicians. But what WOULD make these pols sit up and take notice would be invalidating non-auditable elections.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
It would be the courts, SECOND, that would be doing the invalidating.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Voting laws are written into the Constitution.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#toc-sec
tion-4-

and various amendments and interpretations thereof

https://www.usa.gov/voting-laws#item-212489

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Is it any wonder that Trump thinks he can defy the results of the election and cling to power despite losing an election? Or that his party does not stand up for the will of voters?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Is it any wonder that Trump thinks he can defy the results of the election and cling to power despite losing an election? Or that his party does not stand up for the will of voters?

---

Let's quit pretending this was a mandate.

If there wasn't any fraud (which there absolutely was), Trump got enough votes in 2020 to have won any single Presidential election before 2020.

---

Quote:

---

Lincoln only got 39.8% of the votes, which is not a mandate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
SECOND

Quote:

---

Lincoln only got 39.8% of the votes, which is not a mandate.

---

Someone is confused. If Lincoln got roughly 40% of the vote and Davis got roughly 97% of the vote, that totals to 137%.

Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself on your previous arguments. Previously you insisted that the popular vote and ONLY the popular vote should demonstrate a mandate. Now you seem to be saying that a mandate from the voting public isn't necessary in order to be a good President.

Or are you saying that Lincoln should never have become President?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:



One Third Of US States Have Now Joined Texas SCOTUS Bid To Overturn Election



https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/09/us/politics/trump-texas-supreme-cou
rt-lawsuit.html

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/missouri-joins-texas-taking-electi
on-fight-supreme-court

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
SECOND

Quote:

---

Lincoln only got 39.8% of the votes, which is not a mandate.

---

Someone is confused. If Lincoln got roughly 40% of the vote and Davis got roughly 97% of the vote, that totals to 137%.

Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself on your previous arguments. Previously you insisted that the popular vote and ONLY the popular vote should demonstrate a mandate. Now you seem to be saying that a mandate from the voting public isn't necessary in order to be a good President.

Or are you saying that Lincoln should never have become President?

---

When Lincoln got 40% of the votes for President, Senator Jefferson Davis angrily resigned from the US Senate. Jeff Davis wasn't leaving politics, but he couldn't be a President and a Senator at the same time. He had decided that he would be a much better President than Lincoln could ever be and he preceded, after being appointed provisional President, to take from Lincoln control over bits and pieces of the United States. For a job well done, Jeff received 97% of the slave-owners' votes for a 6 year term as Confederate President, in an election campaign where he promised to be an excellent President, far better than Lincoln. Trump is promising to be an excellent President. That isn't a believable promise, especially if you look back at how well he has performed since 2016.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

So, how did Lincoln become Presdient with only 40 pct of the popular vote?

By YOUR argument, he shouldneve have become President at all!

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

#WEARAMASK

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
SECOND

Quote:

---

Lincoln only got 39.8% of the votes, which is not a mandate.

---

Someone is confused. If Lincoln got roughly 40% of the vote and Davis got roughly 97% of the vote, that totals to 137%.

Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself on your previous arguments. Previously you insisted that the popular vote and ONLY the popular vote should demonstrate a mandate. Now you seem to be saying that a mandate from the voting public isn't necessary in order to be a good President.

Or are you saying that Lincoln should never have become President?

---

When Lincoln got 40% of the votes for President, Senator Jefferson Davis angrily resigned from the US Senate. Jeff Davis wasn't leaving politics, but he couldn't be a President and a Senator at the same time. He had decided that he would be a much better President than Lincoln could ever be and he preceded, after being appointed provisional President, to take from Lincoln control over bits and pieces of the United States. For a job well done, Jeff received 97% of the slave-owners' votes for a 6 year term as Confederate President, in an election campaign where he promised to be an excellent President, far better than Lincoln. Trump is promising to be an excellent President. That isn't a believable promise, especially if you look back at how well he has performed since 2016.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

So, how did Lincoln become Presdient with only 40 pct of the popular vote?

By YOUR argument, he should never have become President at all!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:

---

Quote:

---

SECOND Lincoln only got 39.8% of the votes, which is not a mandate.

SIGNY Someone is confused. If Lincoln got roughly 40% of the vote and Davis got roughly 97% of the vote, that totals to 137%.

Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself on your previous arguments. Previously you insisted that the popular vote and ONLY the popular vote should demonstrate a mandate. Now you seem to be saying that a mandate from the voting public isn't necessary in order to be a good President.

Or are you saying that Lincoln should never have become President?

SECOND When Lincoln got 40% of the votes for President, Senator Jefferson Davis angrily resigned from the US Senate. Jeff Davis wasn't leaving politics, but he couldn't be a President and a Senator at the same time. He had decided that he would be a much better President than Lincoln could ever be and he preceded, after being appointed provisional President, to take from Lincoln control over bits and pieces of the United States. For a job well done, Jeff received 97% of the slave-owners' votes for a 6 year term as Confederate President, in an election campaign where he promised to be an excellent President, far better than Lincoln. Trump is promising to be an excellent President. That isn't a believable promise, especially if you look back at how well he has performed since 2016.

SIGNY So, how did Lincoln become Presdient with only 40 pct of the popular vote?

By YOUR argument, he should never have become President at all!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

So SECONDRATE, have you decided whether the popular vote should decide the Presidency?

Have you figured out the contradiction in your own POV, yet?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

So SECONDRATE, have you decided whether the popular vote should decide the Presidency?

Have you figured out the contradiction in your own POV, yet?

---