Donald Trump
Comments
-
Yesterday evening Sky News had an interview with the head of one of the international electoral oversight agencies. she said they had people on the ground in 31 of the US states including the 7 that were expected to decide the election. They had seen absolutely no evidence of electoral fraud whatsoever.
Perhaps it would be helpful if the tangoed twat actually outlined what fraud has taken place.0 -
What we are seeing is a breakdown of losers consent. The Democrats have been doing this for the last 4 years and now Trump is adding to the toxicity following this election. Everyone loses here but both sides are at fault in creating this situation.Dorset_Boy said:Yesterday evening Sky News had an interview with the head of one of the international electoral oversight agencies. she said they had people on the ground in 31 of the US states including the 7 that were expected to decide the election. They had seen absolutely no evidence of electoral fraud whatsoever.
Perhaps it would be helpful if the tangoed censored actually outlined what fraud has taken place.0 -
The ones in PA have centered on access to the ballot for their observers, not the actual ballot - they're supposed to have observers at the count, they're alleging they don't. They are still saying that when all votes are counted, Trump will have won. It's a stalling and PR ploy more than anything. I thought this was funny though:Dorset_Boy said:Yesterday evening Sky News had an interview with the head of one of the international electoral oversight agencies. she said they had people on the ground in 31 of the US states including the 7 that were expected to decide the election. They had seen absolutely no evidence of electoral fraud whatsoever.
Perhaps it would be helpful if the tangoed censored actually outlined what fraud has taken place.
0 -
0
-
I think this basically sums up the lawsuits though:
0 -
This is total nonsense.coopster_the_1st said:
What we are seeing is a breakdown of losers consent. The Democrats have been doing this for the last 4 years and now Trump is adding to the toxicity following this election. Everyone loses here but both sides are at fault in creating this situation.Dorset_Boy said:Yesterday evening Sky News had an interview with the head of one of the international electoral oversight agencies. she said they had people on the ground in 31 of the US states including the 7 that were expected to decide the election. They had seen absolutely no evidence of electoral fraud whatsoever.
Perhaps it would be helpful if the tangoed censored actually outlined what fraud has taken place.
The Democrats have been saying that the mechanism is not representative and should be changed.
Trump is saying that the other side is cheating, and in places the assumption has to be he suspects in collaboration with the state election officials.
That is not a "both sides at fault here" situation.
The mechanism is still not representative, as Trump has lost by 4 million votes, but the result is this close.0 -
Every time I've heard a Republican grilled on this they go from "fraud has happened" to "postal votes are more open to fraud". It's fake news tactics at their finest - say something over and over until it is accepted as fact.Dorset_Boy said:Yesterday evening Sky News had an interview with the head of one of the international electoral oversight agencies. she said they had people on the ground in 31 of the US states including the 7 that were expected to decide the election. They had seen absolutely no evidence of electoral fraud whatsoever.
Perhaps it would be helpful if the tangoed censored actually outlined what fraud has taken place.0 -
I've recently finished reading https://amazon.co.uk/dp/B07C72Z1P7/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1#ace-g0979249316 and the US President character and British politician in it, who are Russian stooges, are so blatantly based on Trump and Farage I'm amazed there hasn't been a lawsuit (although that would be an admission that they see themselves in the characters).bobmcstuff said:This also made me laugh from Farage:
0 -
Eric Trump's Twitter is good for a laugh.
He's tracking the Arizona poll same as everyone else (as this looks like it could go in Trump's favour, for now), but every other state he is tinfoil hat time. Cognitive dissonance at its peak...0 -
https://www.facebook.com/908009612563863/posts/4412071915490931/?vh=e
Throwback to McCain's concession speech... If only Trump was this reasonable.0 -
Setting aside that this is the usual bullshut, when you were at school and you punched someone, was your justification that the other boy called you a bad name?coopster_the_1st said:
What we are seeing is a breakdown of losers consent. The Democrats have been doing this for the last 4 years and now Trump is adding to the toxicity following this election. Everyone loses here but both sides are at fault in creating this situation.Dorset_Boy said:Yesterday evening Sky News had an interview with the head of one of the international electoral oversight agencies. she said they had people on the ground in 31 of the US states including the 7 that were expected to decide the election. They had seen absolutely no evidence of electoral fraud whatsoever.
Perhaps it would be helpful if the tangoed censored actually outlined what fraud has taken place.
Grow up you idiot.0 -
F*ck. Those curtains.bobmcstuff said:This also made me laugh from Farage:
Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0 -
I think this is because most republicans are hiding and saying nothing. So the only ones who will give a quote are loonies.Pross said:
Every time I've heard a Republican grilled on this they go from "fraud has happened" to "postal votes are more open to fraud". It's fake news tactics at their finest - say something over and over until it is accepted as fact.Dorset_Boy said:Yesterday evening Sky News had an interview with the head of one of the international electoral oversight agencies. she said they had people on the ground in 31 of the US states including the 7 that were expected to decide the election. They had seen absolutely no evidence of electoral fraud whatsoever.
Perhaps it would be helpful if the tangoed censored actually outlined what fraud has taken place.0 -
2 -
I assumed it would be made of stitched together Union Jacks. Or maybe stitched together Union Jacks and American flags.Ben6899 said:
F*ck. Those curtains.bobmcstuff said:This also made me laugh from Farage:
1 -
I can give you one example of voter "fraud". Election rules in Texas are established by the legislature. They specified that all polling place be in buildings. The county clerk of Harris County (think Houston) decided to establish drive thru voting because of the Covid-19 panic. He set up 10, 9 in tents and one in a sports stadium. The Republican party objected. The county clerk ultimately decided to shut down the 9 tent sites. The votes collected are being segregated.
Harris County is heavily Democrat and very large and populous. There are 254 counties in Texas and Harris County is the only one that seems to have adopted drive-thru voting.0 -
I'd suggest that's an example of the process working - the county clerk shut down the sites in line with the rules. Presumably that is why the sports stadium was allowed to stay, seems a pretty normal place for a polling station (if any of this is actually true).swjohnsey said:I can give you one example of voter "fraud". Election rules in Texas are established by the legislature. They specified that all polling place be in buildings. The county clerk of Harris County (think Houston) decided to establish drive thru voting because of the Covid-19 panic. He set up 10, 9 in tents and one in a sports stadium. The Republican party objected. The county clerk ultimately decided to shut down the 9 tent sites. The votes collected are being segregated.
Harris County is heavily Democrat and very large and populous. There are 254 counties in Texas and Harris County is the only one that seems to have adopted drive-thru voting.
All a bit moot as Texas has gone Trump anyway.
Funny that Republicans object to anything which makes it easier for people to vote...0 -
Which way would you think that would be described as "fraud"? The county officials who said they were going to do this, and got agreement from both sides in advance that it was an acceptable way to gather ballots during a pandemic, or the side that allowed the votes to be cast, objected to it afterwards, then lost in court?swjohnsey said:I can give you one example of voter "fraud". Election rules in Texas are established by the legislature. They specified that all polling place be in buildings. The county clerk of Harris County (think Houston) decided to establish drive thru voting because of the Covid-19 panic. He set up 10, 9 in tents and one in a sports stadium. The Republican party objected. The county clerk ultimately decided to shut down the 9 tent sites. The votes collected are being segregated.
Harris County is heavily Democrat and very large and populous. There are 254 counties in Texas and Harris County is the only one that seems to have adopted drive-thru voting.
The clerk shut down the sites to avoid any risk of validly cast votes not being counted because the judge was more equivocal about votes cast after his ruling, so that seems sensible.
I'd say neither was fraud, but was a clear attempt at voter suppression.0 -
Where's the fraud?swjohnsey said:I can give you one example of voter "fraud". Election rules in Texas are established by the legislature. They specified that all polling place be in buildings. The county clerk of Harris County (think Houston) decided to establish drive thru voting because of the Covid-19 panic. He set up 10, 9 in tents and one in a sports stadium. The Republican party objected. The county clerk ultimately decided to shut down the 9 tent sites. The votes collected are being segregated.
Harris County is heavily Democrat and very large and populous. There are 254 counties in Texas and Harris County is the only one that seems to have adopted drive-thru voting.
They seem to be segregating votes to make it easier to go through the tedious charade of figuring out whether the alleged invalid votes will make any difference. They won't, if you have listened carefully to how many are being segregated, it is tiny.
Arizona. Now, they have a long history of postal voting, which is why their count is much more steady as the postal votes are tallied.
Explain why that's not fraudulent, but everywhere else is?
Obviously, you can't.0 -
0 -
Notice that "fraud" is in "". The county clerk had no authority to violate/alter Texas election law. He thought he could be clever and skirt the law by erecting tents. He did this over the objections of the local Republicans. He is a Democrat, by the way.
I agree that this will ultimate have no effect on the election outcome.
Down here in South Texas we have plenty of voter fraud. We have something called politiqueras. The are generally Mexican women that go around to nursing homes and old retired folks. They get them to request mail in/absentee ballots that are legal for folks over 65 or disabled. When the ballot comes they "help" them fill it out and return it. They promise politician a block of votes at some much per head. Every year a few are caught but most aren't.0 -
Each state has its own voting laws.First.Aspect said:
Where's the fraud?swjohnsey said:I can give you one example of voter "fraud". Election rules in Texas are established by the legislature. They specified that all polling place be in buildings. The county clerk of Harris County (think Houston) decided to establish drive thru voting because of the Covid-19 panic. He set up 10, 9 in tents and one in a sports stadium. The Republican party objected. The county clerk ultimately decided to shut down the 9 tent sites. The votes collected are being segregated.
Harris County is heavily Democrat and very large and populous. There are 254 counties in Texas and Harris County is the only one that seems to have adopted drive-thru voting.
They seem to be segregating votes to make it easier to go through the tedious charade of figuring out whether the alleged invalid votes will make any difference. They won't, if you have listened carefully to how many are being segregated, it is tiny.
Arizona. Now, they have a long history of postal voting, which is why their count is much more steady as the postal votes are tallied.
Explain why that's not fraudulent, but everywhere else is?
Obviously, you can't.0 -
Thought so.swjohnsey said:
Each state has its own voting laws.First.Aspect said:
Where's the fraud?swjohnsey said:I can give you one example of voter "fraud". Election rules in Texas are established by the legislature. They specified that all polling place be in buildings. The county clerk of Harris County (think Houston) decided to establish drive thru voting because of the Covid-19 panic. He set up 10, 9 in tents and one in a sports stadium. The Republican party objected. The county clerk ultimately decided to shut down the 9 tent sites. The votes collected are being segregated.
Harris County is heavily Democrat and very large and populous. There are 254 counties in Texas and Harris County is the only one that seems to have adopted drive-thru voting.
They seem to be segregating votes to make it easier to go through the tedious charade of figuring out whether the alleged invalid votes will make any difference. They won't, if you have listened carefully to how many are being segregated, it is tiny.
Arizona. Now, they have a long history of postal voting, which is why their count is much more steady as the postal votes are tallied.
Explain why that's not fraudulent, but everywhere else is?
Obviously, you can't.0 -
This is interesting. If they were running for governor instead of president this would require a run-off as no one got over 50%kingstongraham said:0 -
Mr Texan is very busy posting at 4.30 in the morning.0
-
How many states would that apply to (a) in 2020 (b) in 2016 (c) in 2000?swjohnsey said:
This is interesting. If they were running for governor instead of president this would require a run-off as no one got over 50%kingstongraham said:
Just as mere examples of when a less popular Republican "won". You can't have it both ways.0 -
That's not the interesting thing about it.swjohnsey said:
This is interesting. If they were running for governor instead of president this would require a run-off as no one got over 50%kingstongraham said:0 -
I thought the GOP went to court to protect drive-in voting and the Texas Supreme Court ruled that they could go ahead?swjohnsey said:Notice that "fraud" is in "". The county clerk had no authority to violate/alter Texas election law. He thought he could be clever and skirt the law by erecting tents. He did this over the objections of the local Republicans. He is a Democrat, by the way.
I agree that this will ultimate have no effect on the election outcome.
Down here in South Texas we have plenty of voter fraud. We have something called politiqueras. The are generally Mexican women that go around to nursing homes and old retired folks. They get them to request mail in/absentee ballots that are legal for folks over 65 or disabled. When the ballot comes they "help" them fill it out and return it. They promise politician a block of votes at some much per head. Every year a few are caught but most aren't.
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/02/930365888/federal-judge-dismisses-effort-to-throw-out-drive-through-votes-in-houston?t=1604658916735
0
