Election Results and just the results

Post Reply New Topic

You do understand that if Brictoria wanted to cherry-pick and hide other sections that didn't suit him, he wouldn't have supplied the link to the article?
Supplying the source allows people to check out the article in its entirety.
That is how I do things, also.

Indeed, the source s very important, so readers here can see for themselves plus to reference the copyrighted material and properly acknowledge it, whatever the source.

That is pretty much why I supply a link to the source.

Well, as I said in another thread, Hillary advised Joe to do the same if it looked as though he was loosing.
Goose, and gander.

My position is that there is a lack of integrity on both sides.
I don't agree with your apparent position that only one side plays politics, despite the evidence to the contrary.

Why's he stalling for time now through? Checkmated, but prolonging the game by days instead of shaking hands and starting a new one.

Given the "other side" went through untiil December in 2000, why shouldn't he continue the "fight"?

If he believes that he has evidence of potential issues, why should he be prevented from bringing them forward so that an impartial adjudicator (the Judicial branch) can determine if the issues may have had a bearing on the election process\outcome, and seek to correct those issues and whatever outcome they caused, both for this election, as well as to prevent similar occurrences in future elections?

The legal and constitutional procedure over there allow for these types of situations, and has a fixed cut-off point in early December, so it is not causing any harm in doing so, and may actually help even if only minor issues are found, and so can be prevented from occurring in the future.

And, as another reason, were he to "roll over", as some desire, he would be showing a level of disrespect for his supporters who had been putting in so much effort to try and help him win - If it turns out that he fails in the court cases, they are much more likely to be supportive of him should he run again in 2024, or to support those he backs in 2022 and 2024...Quitting without putting up a fight could mean someone "worse" than him could end up replacing him.

As an alternative, why are the Democrats fighting so hard against canvassing of votes and signature checks? Given these are designed to prevent fraud and stop invalid botes being counted, by not fighting them (and allowing\joining in requests for them to occur) they would both be "legitimising" Mr Biden's win (should the post-canvassing results show he won) in the eyes of both Mr Biden's supporters as well as Mr Trump's, and would also remove\devalue claims of fraud that Mr Trump would otherwise be free to use when referring to his loss. This would also help to remove his support, were he shown to have been wrong as a result of the canvassing, as well as be a demonstration of conciliation with his supporters by the Democrats, and serve as a way to demonstrate their willingness to work with Mr Trumps supporters, rather than against them. What better way to win them over than to do what Mr Trump wanted and for it not to go the way he led them to believe it would go?

The left of politics played dirty every second, of his 4-year presidency.
You don't have to be a narcissist to spit the dummy, under those conditions.

I'm not sure what's being prolonged. Trump is the president for the next couple of months. Whether he challenges or concedes isn't going to make any difference as far as that timeframe goes.

There are very few grounds for believing that any fraud took place, with the possible exception of perhaps a few hundred votes here and there which wouldn't affect the outcome. He's harming his credibility by getting people to buy into his groundless reasons to dispute the outcome.

@Mr Pepe: politics is generally a game that needs plenty of sanitizer, toilet paper and wet wipes but suggesting the left played dirty "every second" is hopelessly hyperbolic! Having read in detail about some of his acts during the past four years, many seem purely motivated by spite and a desire to destroy any pretence of caring for the environment for one thing = pandering to mining interest groups at every turn.

TF: then he should at least be fair, and play ball with the new team by letting them be privy to the security and other critical info they need access to.

Maybe he just wants to watch people continuing to go bonkers over him.

All the more reason to go along with the investigation requests, prove him wrong, and so shake the faith of his supporters in him, rather than try to obstruct him, and so encourage their belief in him (or their belief that the "other side" were trying to hide something)...

It also shows a willingness to work with his supporters, rather than against them, and so would be a good starting point to bringing the 2 sides together.

Not if he thinks the new team didn't really win or at least hasn't officially won yet. I get the feeling the new team likes to make out things are in a bigger state of crisis than they really are. That was the reason for voting for Joe, so that he could save the world.

Based on what I have seen of the declassified documents regarding the transition from the previous President to him, I wonder if he has decided to show a similar level of "fair play" as was shown to him.

An overview of the "fair play" shown him is summarised at https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/15/how-democrats-tried-handcuff-donald-trump-start/ should you be interested...

I suppose your assessment may be extraordinarily accurate, Sir

Its not hard to imagine cackling fiendish laughter.

Come on, Bric, it’s insulting that you try to present something like that as an objective overview of the Trump transition, let alone evidence of Obama and Clinton acting the way he has. Most of the recorded things are not even related to Obama or Clinton, but rather random activists, and many of them are things which are well within norms (like not attending an inauguration) or are even beneficial to democracy (like opposition politicians opposing the government).

Clinton conceded to Trump at 2:30am on Election Night. The next day he had a meeting with Obama to discuss the transition. Obama did not stop officials from giving him information. None of Obama’s cabinet made statements about a “transition to a Clinton administration”. Trump received full security briefings to allow him to hit the ground running, and the executive branch was allowed to prepare for his Presidency.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... democracy/