Trump Will Try to Cancel November Election

Deleted_User

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
7,831
Reaction score
532
Points
113
That’s a generality. Be specific.
They were not prepared for the generality, by lacking specifics. Lack of working supplies, like a stockpile that had not maintained its ventilators or inspecting them before shipment. The lack of professionalism from the bureaucracy, led by sycophants, and allowing defective equipment to be shipped to hospitals expecting to utilize that equipment is one such example. Buck stops with Trump. I watched at least three doctors in NY NY talk about the ventilators recieved from the federal stockpile that did not get used at those facilities because they all had the same defect. The federal government purchased the machines, never tested them for function, stocked them for years, and then shipped them out without knowing they were defective.

Shipping out testing kits with out of control reagents. The reagents needed to be confirmed before shipment, but were not. The receiving labs detected that the reagents were not working.

Do I need to go on and on to satisfy your desire as to how effed up the Federal response to hospital needs has been? These are the popular and well known cases. Do you want the greater dirt on this by category in a chart?
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
16,869
Reaction score
1,813
Points
113
Thank you. Also, how can we prove who actually filled it out and mailed it in? There are dozens of reasons why it could be a problem. But I’m very opposed to making a change of this magnitude a few months before a major election. Dems are obviously pushing because they think it will help them win elections. They are opposed to voter id because they think it will hurt them.
And they will want to institute these changes permanently, like everything else that they’re “not letting this crisis go to waste” for.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
45,107
Reaction score
1,932
Points
113
They were not prepared for the generality, by lacking specifics. Lack of working supplies, like a stockpile that had not maintained its ventilators or inspecting them before shipment. The lack of professionalism from the bureaucracy, led by sycophants, and allowing defective equipment to be shipped to hospitals expecting to utilize that equipment is one such example. Buck stops with Trump. I watched at least three doctors in NY NY talk about the ventilators recieved from the federal stockpile that did not get used at those facilities because they all had the same defect. The federal government purchased the machines, never tested them for function, stocked them for years, and then shipped them out without knowing they were defective.

Shipping out testing kits with out of control reagents. The reagents needed to be confirmed before shipment, but were not. The receiving labs detected that the reagents were not working.

Do I need to go on and on to satisfy your desire as to how effed up the Federal response to hospital needs has been? These are the popular and well known cases. Do you want the greater dirt on this by category in a chart?
Are we talking about the pandemic response team that Trump fired? That was the question I asked.
 

Deleted_User

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
7,831
Reaction score
532
Points
113
From a Wall Street Journal op-ed 4 days ago:

Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.” That quote isn’t from President Trump, who criticized mail-in voting this week after Wisconsin Democrats tried and failed to change an election at the last minute into an exclusively mail-in affair. It’s the conclusion of the bipartisan 2005 report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker III.

Concerns about vote-buying have a long history in the U.S. They helped drive the move to the secret ballot, which U.S. states adopted between 1888 and 1950. Secret ballots made it harder for vote buyers to monitor which candidates sellers actually voted for. Vote-buying had been pervasive; my research with Larry Kenny at the University of Florida has found that voter turnout fell by about 8% to 12% after states adopted the secret ballot.

You wouldn’t know any of this listening to the media outcry over Mr. Trump’s remarks. “There is a lot of dishonesty going on with mail-in voting,” the president said Tuesday. In response, a CNN “fact check” declares that Mr. Trump “opened a new front in his campaign of lies about voter fraud.” A New York Times headline asserts: “Trump Is Pushing a False Argument on Vote-by-Mail Fraud.” Both claim that voter fraud is essentially nonexistent. The Carter-Baker report found otherwise.

Intimidation and vote buying were key concerns of the commission: “Citizens who vote at home, at nursing homes, at the workplace, or in church are more susceptible to pressure, overt and subtle, or to intimidation. Vote buying schemes are far more difficult to detect when citizens vote by mail.” The report provides examples, such as the 1997 Miami mayoral election that resulted in 36 arrests for absentee-ballot fraud. The election had to be rerun, and the result was reversed.

There are more recent cases, too. In 2017 an investigation of a Dallas City Council election found some 700 fraudulent mail-in ballots signed by the same witness using a fake name. The discovery left two council races in limbo, and the fraud was much larger than the vote differential in one of those races. The case resulted in a criminal conviction....
"Washington, DC A growing coalition of voting rights organizations issued the following statement today criticizing the deeply flawed deliberative process of the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform-- a process culminating in a new report with some deeply flawed recommendations."

What is really interesting is that the "Commission" was never commissioned. It was a privately funded group. It did not take witnesses. It did not take public comment. And, it was not a public report. It is a private report, that is a private opinion. It is not sound political science. Why Jimmy Carter and James Baker? Because they are old enough to be vulnerable adults that can be confused into believing that they would make a difference. And, you can see by their meeting just twice that they did not conduct much work. This is a showcase of really sloppy work by two giants of public service who took the prepacked construct of a report and put their names on it without other review. It was and is a sham.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
16,869
Reaction score
1,813
Points
113
"Washington, DC A growing coalition of voting rights organizations issued the following statement today criticizing the deeply flawed deliberative process of the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform-- a process culminating in a new report with some deeply flawed recommendations."

What is really interesting is that the "Commission" was never commissioned. It was a privately funded group. It did not take witnesses. It did not take public comment. And, it was not a public report. It is a private report, that is a private opinion. It is not sound political science. Why Jimmy Carter and James Baker? Because they are old enough to be vulnerable adults that can be confused into believing that they would make a difference. And, you can see by their meeting just twice that they did not conduct much work. This is a showcase of really sloppy work by two giants of public service who took the prepacked construct of a report and put their names on it without other review. It was and is a sham.
”Why Jimmy Carter and James Baker? Because they are old enough to be vulnerable adults that can be confused into believing that they would make a difference”?

Are you serious? Jimmy Carter was too old and could be confused?

Jimmy Carter was 2 years older in 2005 than Joe Biden would be when he takes office as POTUS. And Jimmy Carter is as sharp as Joe Biden is today, at least.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
45,107
Reaction score
1,932
Points
113
”Why Jimmy Carter and James Baker? Because they are old enough to be vulnerable adults that can be confused into believing that they would make a difference”?

Are you serious? Jimmy Carter was too old and could be confused?

Jimmy Carter was 2 years older in 2005 than Joe Biden would be when he takes office as POTUS. And Jimmy Carter is as sharp as Joe Biden is today, at least.
How dare you insult Carter that way. Biden can't hold a candle to Carter mentally.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
15,543
Reaction score
2,381
Points
113
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/24/us/politics/trump-2020-election-voting-rights.html

"
Trump Sows Doubt on Voting. It Keeps Some People Up at Night.
A group of worst-case scenario planners — mostly Democrats, but also some anti-Trump Republicans — have been gaming out how to respond to various doomsday options for the 2020 presidential election.

- In October, President Trump declares a state of emergency in major cities in battleground states, like Milwaukee and Detroit, banning polling places from opening.

- A week before the election, Attorney General William P. Barr announces a criminal investigation into the Democratic presidential nominee, Joseph R. Biden Jr.

- After Mr. Biden wins a narrow Electoral College victory, Mr. Trump refuses to accept the results, won’t leave the White House and declines to allow the Biden transition team customary access to agencies before the Jan. 20 inauguration.

Far-fetched conspiracy theories? Not to a group of worst-case scenario planners — mostly Democrats, but some anti-Trump Republicans as well — who have been gaming out various doomsday options for the 2020 presidential election. Outraged by Mr. Trump and fearful that he might try to disrupt the campaign before, during and after Election Day, they are engaged in a process that began in the realm of science fiction but has nudged closer to reality as Mr. Trump and his administration abandon longstanding political norms.

"
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,151
Reaction score
2,175
Points
113
I want the Trump supporters here to go on record right here and now that he won't refuse to leave office in January if he's defeated in November. That there'd be a smooth transfer of power under those circumstances. Simple yes-or-no declaration. Say it.
 

Blizzard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,549
Reaction score
100
Points
48
I want the Trump supporters here to go on record right here and now that he won't refuse to leave office in January if he's defeated in November. That there'd be a smooth transfer of power under those circumstances. Simple yes-or-no declaration. Say it.
I have a few left leaning folks at work who've said the same thing. Honestly, it's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Yes, of course, he will leave office smoothly if he loses.

I think you all Democrats should worry about your own game. Plenty there to keep you busy. (Kurt Russell. Miracle.)
 

JimmyJamesMD

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
7,895
Reaction score
854
Points
113
From a Wall Street Journal op-ed 4 days ago:

Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.” That quote isn’t from President Trump, who criticized mail-in voting this week after Wisconsin Democrats tried and failed to change an election at the last minute into an exclusively mail-in affair. It’s the conclusion of the bipartisan 2005 report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker III.

Concerns about vote-buying have a long history in the U.S. They helped drive the move to the secret ballot, which U.S. states adopted between 1888 and 1950. Secret ballots made it harder for vote buyers to monitor which candidates sellers actually voted for. Vote-buying had been pervasive; my research with Larry Kenny at the University of Florida has found that voter turnout fell by about 8% to 12% after states adopted the secret ballot.

You wouldn’t know any of this listening to the media outcry over Mr. Trump’s remarks. “There is a lot of dishonesty going on with mail-in voting,” the president said Tuesday. In response, a CNN “fact check” declares that Mr. Trump “opened a new front in his campaign of lies about voter fraud.” A New York Times headline asserts: “Trump Is Pushing a False Argument on Vote-by-Mail Fraud.” Both claim that voter fraud is essentially nonexistent. The Carter-Baker report found otherwise.

Intimidation and vote buying were key concerns of the commission: “Citizens who vote at home, at nursing homes, at the workplace, or in church are more susceptible to pressure, overt and subtle, or to intimidation. Vote buying schemes are far more difficult to detect when citizens vote by mail.” The report provides examples, such as the 1997 Miami mayoral election that resulted in 36 arrests for absentee-ballot fraud. The election had to be rerun, and the result was reversed.

There are more recent cases, too. In 2017 an investigation of a Dallas City Council election found some 700 fraudulent mail-in ballots signed by the same witness using a fake name. The discovery left two council races in limbo, and the fraud was much larger than the vote differential in one of those races. The case resulted in a criminal conviction....
Name me ONE example of voter fraud? I dont care what happened in Miami or Dallas that you cited above. Its still never happened! Arrghhh!
 

LakevilleBro

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
744
Reaction score
492
Points
63
I want the Trump supporters here to go on record right here and now that he won't refuse to leave office in January if he's defeated in November. That there'd be a smooth transfer of power under those circumstances. Simple yes-or-no declaration. Say it.
If defeated, Trump will leave office and there will be smooth transfer. He does not want a mess, that has happened in the past.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
15,543
Reaction score
2,381
Points
113
^^^ so in other words, it happens less often than people get struck by lightning.

Well G-D, we better amend the constitution to make this punishable by hanging!
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,732
Reaction score
946
Points
113

Database Swells to 1,285 Proven Cases of Voter Fraud in America
Wow. So many! This is surely rampant, and we need to amend the Constitution so that only registered Republican Party members can vote. That will solve the whole problem. They never ever ever cheat. Hey, there was a case in NC not too long ago of Republicans doing blatant election fraud, on a scale that changed a local election. I didn't see you care at all, even though it was posted here. Just typical KGB hypocrisy. What a Comrade.

ALL election fraud is terrible, INCLUDING that by a President who claims significant election fraud (at the federal level) without any proof of significant election fraud, in order to delegitimize elections (including one that he won). There are probably equally as much election fraud occurring by both Democrat and Republican-voting persons. It's terrible. But it's not rampant. We should be far more vigilant of the possibility of the hacking of voting machines that leave no paper trail. It is notable that Debold, one of the main companies making voting machines, is headed by a staunch Republican.

Notably, mail-in ballots, run properly, do take away some of the ability to cheat an election by electronic hacking of paperless machines. It also takes away the ability of Republican officials to commit the democratic-voting sin of refusing to properly populate voting machines in highly Democratic areas, to suppress the vote in those areas. I wonder how much of these things are cause for all of this recent angst by Republicans. Remember, the voting tallies did not match up very well with exit polling in the 2004 GWB win, nor in the 2016 Trump win. Oddities. Makes one wonder if something is going on. You know what, let's just pull an "ignorant Republican" and state flat out, given the association with Debold and Republicans, and the "strange" results in elections since electronic balloting became common, that that's all the evidence we need: we can declare here and now, that is plenty of evidence, and Republicans are surely committing election fraud! Conspiracy theories are fun, aren't they?
 
Last edited:

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
9,669
Reaction score
1,280
Points
113
I think the odds of Trump challenging the election results depends on the margin of victory. Assuming in this scenario that Biden wins:

If we're talking about a significant margin of victory, the odds are less that Trump would mount some challenge.

But - if it's a close election - like Bush/Gore or Kennedy/Nixon close - I do not think it's out of the realm of possibility that Trump tries to mount a legal challenge of some type - calling for recounts - challenging results in states that had a high % of mail-in or absentee ballots and so forth.

Under this scenario, the goal for Trump is to somehow mount a challenge that winds up in front of the Supreme Court and hope for a 'home-court' ruling in his favor.

it might be only a 5% or 10% chance of actually taking place - but I don't think you can dismiss the possibility out of hand.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,732
Reaction score
946
Points
113
I think the odds of Trump challenging the election results depends on the margin of victory. Assuming in this scenario that Biden wins:

If we're talking about a significant margin of victory, the odds are less that Trump would mount some challenge.

But - if it's a close election - like Bush/Gore or Kennedy/Nixon close - I do not think it's out of the realm of possibility that Trump tries to mount a legal challenge of some type - calling for recounts - challenging results in states that had a high % of mail-in or absentee ballots and so forth.

Under this scenario, the goal for Trump is to somehow mount a challenge that winds up in front of the Supreme Court and hope for a 'home-court' ruling in his favor.

it might be only a 5% or 10% chance of actually taking place - but I don't think you can dismiss the possibility out of hand.
He knows there's a solid chance that he and his cronies will be tried for their crimes once he's out of office. He'll fight tooth and nail to prevent himself from leaving office and facing that onslaught.

If he were smart and had the ability to swallow his gigantic self-pride, he'd make a deal here and now: resign from office with the stipulation that he and his family cannot be prosecuted for any crimes once he leaves. That would solve so very many problems.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
16,869
Reaction score
1,813
Points
113
With 14.3 million illegal aliens in the country, this small number shows how lazy they are.
Only the proven cases. Since the object is to hide fraud and it can be extremely difficult to detect, who knows who is voting?

But I’m far less worried about illegals voting than I am corrupt Democrats (almost redundant) altering the voting.
 
Last edited:

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
5,921
Reaction score
1,116
Points
113
Only the proven cases. Since the object is to hide fraud and it can be extremely difficult to detect, who knows who voting?

But I’m far less worried about illegals voting than I am corrupt Democrats (almost redundant) altering the voting.
I'm having a bit of fun with the old saw that Democrats encourage illegal immigration as a quid pro quo for votes. Some folks aren't holding up the bargain, I guess.
More seriously, if you are undocumented, I'd imagine you have as few contacts with the authorities as you can.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
45,107
Reaction score
1,932
Points
113
I'm having a bit of fun with the old saw that Democrats encourage illegal immigration as a quid pro quo for votes. Some folks aren't holding up the bargain, I guess.
More seriously, if you are undocumented, I'd imagine you have as few contacts with the authorities as you can.
It's pretty obvious to me that Democrats are pro illegal immigration in the hopes that one day they will be legal immigrants, and a huge source of future votes. I don't think of it as a quid pro quo at it is an obvious attempt a grooming a potential future voting bloc. ESPECIALLY so since they are a potential voting block in giant red states.
If Rs could import immigrants from some redneck country that doesn't exist, into California, they would. Sadly, the list of conservative countries is tiny compared to the socialist ones to import voters.
 

LakevilleBro

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
744
Reaction score
492
Points
63
He knows there's a solid chance that he and his cronies will be tried for their crimes once he's out of office. He'll fight tooth and nail to prevent himself from leaving office and facing that onslaught.

If he were smart and had the ability to swallow his gigantic self-pride, he'd make a deal here and now: resign from office with the stipulation that he and his family cannot be prosecuted for any crimes once he leaves. That would solve so very many problems.
What are Trump's crimes?
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,151
Reaction score
2,175
Points
113
He knows there's a solid chance that he and his cronies will be tried for their crimes once he's out of office. He'll fight tooth and nail to prevent himself from leaving office and facing that onslaught.

If he were smart and had the ability to swallow his gigantic self-pride, he'd make a deal here and now: resign from office with the stipulation that he and his family cannot be prosecuted for any crimes once he leaves. That would solve so very many problems.
If it's the end of his term and there's no other way out of prosecution, don't be surprised if he disappears and turns up overseas somewhere in a safe place.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,566
Reaction score
1,285
Points
113
I want the Trump supporters here to go on record right here and now that he won't refuse to leave office in January if he's defeated in November. That there'd be a smooth transfer of power under those circumstances. Simple yes-or-no declaration. Say it.
Yes, but only if Trump doesn't suspect Joe Biden colluded with foreign powers Ukraine or China to steal the election. In that case, we'll all agree to put the transition on hold temporarily & we'll use Trump's new IC to investigate Biden & everyone in his orbit for treason. It should only take 3 years or so.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
45,292
Reaction score
3,530
Points
113
^^^ so in other words, it happens less often than people get struck by lightning.

Well G-D, we better amend the constitution to make this punishable by hanging!
1200 out of hundreds of millions. Let's stop tens of millions from voting instead! 'Murica!
 
Top Bottom