Trump's various attempts to challenge election results

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think that is the case when it comes to rioting.
The "CHAD" (whatever) experiment was hugely costly in terms of increased crime, loss of income and the destruction of many businesses, plus a number of deaths.

I think the community would be better off if extremists on BOTH sides of the political divide were neutered.

Ok, so you countenance a war crime.

Learning nothing from decades of civil disobedience all over the world isn't exclusive to the left & you're proof.

How do I support war crimes?



I don't know what you mean.

You're looking to impose legal order through eugenics judging by what you said about a few dangerous people, as opposed to what you didn't say about a great many dangerous people. What you said is in direct violation of too many international treaties for me to count.

Of course you don't know what I mean, if you were a critical thinker you might check yourself before parroting centrist fairy tales when confronted with your implicit bias.

Quite frankly your viewpoint is very detached from the brutality it represents.

This is your literal side of autism, at work, presumably.
I didn't literally mean people should be castrated.
It was a joke.




I *am* a critical thinker.




Virtually, all life is brutal.
When you get older, you tend to grow calluses, and learn to cope.

Rational, objective discussion is preferable to illogical emotionalism, to me.
Discussion is an intellectual activity, after all.

Violent fantasies are just that.

Not a "Trump" case, but it seems the rushed attempt to certify Pennsylvania's election results has been halted:

Source: https://www.marklevinshow.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/301/2020/11/Memorandum-Opinion-Filed.pdf

Given the rushed attempt to certify the results came as about because of a motion for an injunction to prevent it occurring, I'm not sure how favourable towards the respondents in this case the judge is likely to be...

Pennsylvania Republican Lawmakers Introduce Resolution Disputing 2020 Election Results

It is intriguing how a blanket statement of "violence" is twisted and distorted to imply a focus on the subset "violence against person\people", when the original statement was not limited to any subset and as such included all forms of violence...It certainly gives the impression of acknowledging the accuracy of the original statement's intent, but attempting to hide this inconvenient fact through the dishonest attempt at refocussing.



Just because the media say something (or it is "standard practice") doesn't make it true...

Source: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/president-elect

To clarify (somewhat simplified), as you appear not to understand the electoral system in the U.S.A. as relates to Presidential elections:
* People in each state vote for the person they wish the state's electors in the electoral college to vote for. They are not directly voting for the President, and so the "winner" is not "President Elect" (In the same way that the "popular vote" result is meaningless).
* Once counting is completed and the results certified, states determine which electors will be sent to the electoral college, along with who they should vote for. At this point, there has still been no direct vote for the role of President (and there is the possibility of "faithless electors"), and so the "President Elect" is still to be determined.
* The electoral college convenes and votes for the President - The result of this, being the first time the President is directly voted for, is where the "President Elect" is determined in fact.

The other alternative, of course, is that you dishonestly reframed what you were responding to, in order to sidestep the "without waiting for the constitutional process to proceed" portion which was an integral component of the initial statement...


An obvious example would be certain online publishers blocking posts\people who make certain posts regarding irregularities which may have occurred, in order to attempt to prevent others becoming aware of\having access to this information which may have relevence to claims contesting the result of the election.

The amusing part, though, is that by fighting against attempts from Mr Trump to show there was adequate fraud such that it may have affected the result, rather than allowing the claims to be investigated, those seeking to block investigations are helping him. Regardless of the outcome, as a result of their actions, his supporters are going to be more likely to remain loyal (2024, and probably would have an impact around his endorsements for 2022), whereas by allowing the investigation to continue, they would either have had their belief in him vindicated (if it was found fraud prevented him winning), or would be less likely to remain loyal if it was shown his claims were incorrect.

The latter is how the word "violence" is most commonly used. Theft and vandalism are not usually described as "violent" (except in the case of mugging or armed robbery).

Both violence and looting (theft) can accurately be described as "criminal activity."


On the contrary, I would say that people who describe BLM and antifa protests as "violent" are trying to insinuate, falsely, that they are at least as prone to killing people as some of the more extreme right wingers are.


The electoral college is indeed the "constitutional process," but, for most of the U.S.A.'s history, it has been just a rubber-stamp formality. While there are occasional "faithless electors," there have never been enough of them to change the outcome of an election. That's why it is standard practice for American media to start using the term "President-elect" as soon as the outcome of the popular vote in enough states is known that it can be determined that one candidate will get at least 270 electoral college votes.

Not only is this standard practice for the American media, it is also standard practice for the U.S. government to begin the transition process at that point, or within a few days thereafter. Reason: the transition process takes time. If we had to wait until the "constitutional process" was all finished, there would not be enough time to do a proper transition.


Recounts, audits, and some investigations have already been done, along with a lots and lots of lawsuits, only one of which had enough substance to decided in Trump's favor, and none of which turned up any credible evidence of fraud. At this point, there is no reason to keep on investigating and investigating and investigating in the absence of any credible evidence of fraud. Delaying the transition process would be a huge boon to the U.S.A.'s enemies.

Last edited by Mona Pereth on 28 Nov 2020, 10:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

I am giving to that fund- to cover the legal costs for Trump to overturn the election- after seeing this ad.

So what if Biden really DID win the election?
We all cant allow this...

Last edited by naturalplastic on 28 Nov 2020, 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

I don't entirely understand how somebody who lives in Australia can know more about recent events in Seattle than I do. I wonder if anybody who reads this actually lives in Seattle and can expand on what you've said?

So sad.

Like those sad dog commercials with dogs in cages.

I'm balwing tears.

Yes. Some say that we should just...put him down.

But I think that we should find him a home.

This case has been thrown out:

Pennsylvania Supreme Court tosses GOP congressman’s suit seeking to throw out all ballots cast by mail by Jeremy Roebuck, Philadelphia Inquirer, November 28, 2020.

But Rep. Mike Kelly And Sean Parnell are now trying to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court:

Rep. Mike Kelly And Sean Parnell To Appeal Pa. Supreme Court Loss Over Mail-In Ballots To SCOTUS by Jon Delano, KDKA Channel 2 CBS Pittsburgh, November 30, 2020.

I watch the news here.
Wot, you think the Amerikans censor what goes out of America, like the China*s* do?