Zone1 What if Trump was Right?

What did Trump mean by that?

What Trump meant was that he didn’t care if it was a fair count, only that he wins.
A reasonable request would be to check the count and make sure it is accurate.
Trump only wanted them to find 11,000 votes….For ME!
 
You can’t accept proof when it comes to your Messiah
I got a souvenir jar of pee for a campaign contribution.

200.gif
 
Learn to accept your status as "
loser" in the election.

I'm so glad affirmative action is over. Women have no business running a business. Because of Affirmative Action,

As of 2024, women make up 10.4% of Fortune 500 CEOs.

In 1980, no women were CEOs of Fortune 500 companies.

That's proof women aren't as smart as men. If it weren't for affirmative action, there would be no women CEO's. And that would be the right number.

If women were as smart as men the number would be 50% without affirmative action. But even WITH affirmative action the number is 10%. And none of those women should be in the position they are in.

You're a special kind of woman Hollie. To agree with me on this.
 
Al Gore wanted all the votes in Florida counted. Bush’s Secretary of State wanted to keep stopping the count and declare GW the winner

And National Republicans came in from outside the state to start a riot to stop the recount. It's where Trump got the idea. It was called the Brooks Brother Riots because the oddballs who came in from out of state were all dressed like douchbags


It wasn't Floridian Republicans. It was Federal Republicans with a plan to stop the process.

There is a process. Florida was doing the process. Republicans rioted to stop the process because they didn't want us to find the irregularities. And the Right leaning Supreme Court went along. They would have went along in 2020 but Trump lost all the swing states. It was too much for the right wing Supreme Court injustices to go along. But they do help Trump whenever they can. With their bullshit rulings.
 
What a crock. Cases that were brought were almost all simply dismissed on one “procedural” ground or another.

Face facts. Nobody wanted to touch at hot potato.

Regardless of whether the cheating that took place sufficed to garner the Biden “win,” it is still a fascinating topic. What if it had resulted in the loser being declared the winner? What is the remedy for that when courts decline to even entertain any suits?

The "procedural grounds" that were the basis for the dismissal were mostly the fact that there was no substantial evidence.

You actually have to show the courts that you have reasonable evidence before they allow a proceedings to begin.

"Everybody Knows it" - Guiliani's primary argument - is not reasonable evidence.
 

So now all the news junkies will have their next bowl of pablum, and be able to shriek about how they KNEW all along that Trump was a criminal, and he tried to overthrow the government, blah, blah, blah.

But here is the question I would like to address (and get some serious pondrification from others). What if Trump was right? What if the combination of the suppressed Hunter Biden Laptop story, Zuckerberg's half-billion dollar campaign to illegally buy Biden votes, vote harvesting in Atlanta and elsewhere, and shenanigans with voting rules by various Secretaries of State truly did amount to stealing the 2020 election?

If it makes it easier, imagine that the result went the opposite way, and all of those factors favored Trump. How should Biden have acted in that case?

If a sitting Presidential KNOWS that the election was stolen - knows it for a fact - and there is no legal remedy for the theft, how should s/he respond?

DO NOT use this space to re-argue whether Trump was right or not. PRESUME that he was right. How should he have handled it?

Your Orange Shit Stain Hero is a pathological liar. He has never been right once.
 
The "procedural grounds" that were the basis for the dismissal were mostly the fact that there was no substantial evidence.

Absolutely false. Procedural grounds most generally don’t address the underlying substantive claims, you idiot.
You actually have to show the courts that you have reasonable evidence before they allow a proceedings to begin.
Not exactly. Courts are supposed to assess procedural grounds like standing. But they aren’t supposed to misuse those procedural grounds to evade having to decide a case on the merits. And the latter is what happened.
"Everybody Knows it" - Guiliani's primary argument - is not reasonable evidence.
This discussion isn’t about your simple-minded and distorted spin on other cases.
 
I think what a lot of people miss is that the real issue many of us have about 2020 isn’t about who got the most votes. I think most of us agree Biden got more votes. The question is… how did he get those votes?

When multiple battleground areas are changing the rules about who can vote, how, when, and where in the middle of an election season, you have to expect there will be questions and concerns about the outcome of that election. Especially if some of those areas have thin margins of victory.
 

Forum List

Back
Top