In the history of American voting, have you ever seen this threat before?

[kjfreeze]

The War Starts After November 3rd

It's always been campaign for the Presidency and by election night we have a winner. The only remotely crazy scenario would have been the hanging chads. Now this is a complete and utter disgrace that is being prepared for Nov. 3rd.

Steve Bannon: "They’re talking about it. They’re already saying, both Facebook and Twitter that they’re not going to announce a winner. Here’s what’s going to happen. Donald J. Trump is going to win the vote on the only day that matters. That’s November 3rd.

He’s going to win the real election in the way we’ve done it with secret ballots with people going into a booth and voting for President of the United States. By that evening he will be the winner. What they’re going to do is between the lawfare they’ve got with 800 attorneys under Eric Holder. The mob they’ve got with Antifa and the radical elements of Black Lives Matter. But most importantly the digital muscle with Facebook and Twitter, they’re going to sit there and they’re going to not declare Trump the winner."


https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...chine-tucker-carlson-war-starts-november-3rd/

 

[LizardGrad89]

I'm deleting this. I am trying to remain constructive.

But really, this is just nuts.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

They aren't even trying to hide it anymore.

Everything is at stake for them. Barr and Durham are closing in.

 

[kjfreeze]

View embedded media

They aren't even trying to hide it anymore.

Everything is at stake for them. Barr and Durham are closing in.

So, according to DOCTOR Jill Hiden voting for Jill Hiden's husband will automatically make the pandemic go away and all will be well with school and work? I believe that. If Jill Hiden's husband does become president (which he won't) then this whole virus mess will magically disappear. We've said that all along. It's been kept around and at everyone's doorstep because it's a Trump disruption.

 

[IrishPokerDog]

I can’t worry about it ..... it does nothing for me. States can select their electoral votes by who wins a chicken race, if that’s in their constitution

And Bush v. Gore upheld that the fight can’t go past the federal deadline in December for which states must confirm their electors ..... so thats settled case law

If a state is going to allow their effing electors to be decided by the best cheaters, that’s their prerogative....

 

[BamaFan1137]

I can’t worry about it ..... it does nothing for me.

Agree...I worry about the consequences though.

As stupid as I think it would be, if Biden wins then I want it settled in as short of time as reasonably possible and then I will want a peaceful transition of power. If Trump wins, settle it and then Biden can return safely to his basement.

I see no scenario where that second option happens. I have serious doubts about the first. This is how you destroy a republic. That is the point for some.

 

[LizardGrad89]

Agree...I worry about the consequences though.

As stupid as I think it would be, if Biden wins then I want it settled in as short of time as reasonably possible and then I will want a peaceful transition of power. If Trump wins, settle it and then Biden can return safely to his basement.

I see no scenario where that second option happens. I have serious doubts about the first. This is how you destroy a republic. That is the point for some.

So....

Last election, when Trump stated 2 days or before the election that the only way he would lose was massive voter fraud, and if he did lose than he was going to get his lawyers to contest the election and blah blah blah Trump Speak blah, that was fine and good, but if some website that just makes stuff up claims the Dems are saying the exact same thing Trump was saying 4 years ago this is suddenly a grave threat to our Republic?

Please note Trump himself made these statements in 2016, and some unknown is making insinuations in 2020. Which you are all now taking so very, very seriously.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

So....

Last election, when Trump stated 2 days or before the election that the only way he would lose was massive voter fraud, and if he did lose than he was going to get his lawyers to contest the election and blah blah blah Trump Speak blah, that was fine and good, but if some website that just makes stuff up claims the Dems are saying the exact same thing Trump was saying 4 years ago this is suddenly a grave threat to our Republic?

Please note Trump himself made these statements in 2016, and some unknown is making insinuations in 2020. Which you are all now taking so very, very seriously.

Dems are still contesting the 2016 election. Good grief man.

 

[instaGATOR]

Harris / Hiden will never sit in the WH.

WHY?

Because America will NEVER be a SOCIALIST country.

If the socialists think that their punk-ass riots are something to fear,
then they have no clue what a full out conservative civil war looks like.

Maybe they have forgotten what happened to their Rat asses in the last one....

 

[IrishPokerDog]

Harris / Hiden will never sit in the WH.

WHY?

Because America will NEVER be a SOCIALIST country.

If the socialists think that their punk-ass riots are something to fear,
then they have no clue what a full out conservative civil war looks like.

Maybe they have forgotten what happened to their Rat asses in the last one....

I like your confidence.... but never say never. It takes people who understand real freedom and what it takes to keep a country free, and why Marxism is the antithesis of freedom.... unfortunately, the newer generations aren’t being taught this; and haven’t felt serious hardship

 

[IrishPokerDog]

So here is the issue and where to watch for the litigation of election results ..... the Secretaries of State for swing states. The SoS of states is the final reporting authority for state electors

The key swing states with Democrat SoS’s Are Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina

Any shenanigans will likely be most effective in these states. States that can’t have electors determined by 12/14/20, will be omitted from electing the president. This can certainly change the calculus for the winner

 

[LizardGrad89]

I like your confidence.... but never say never. It takes people who understand real freedom and what it takes to keep a country free, and why Marxism is the antithesis of freedom.... unfortunately, the newer generations aren’t being taught this; and haven’t felt serious hardship

You don't understand Marxism if you think that.

Of course, by that, I know you really mean Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism. And in that you are 100% correct.

But, you remember the hippie communes of the 70's? Where there was no money and everybody just shared everything, free love, the whole bit? That was an attempt at Marxism. True Marxism has no government; the guiding principle is "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs". You say it's not free? It's the freest society possible. The only real problem with it is that it completely doesn't work. It's contrary to human nature. You know who understood human nature? Adam Smith. HE got it.

 

[LizardGrad89]

So here is the issue and where to watch for the litigation of election results ..... the Secretaries of State for swing states. The SoS of states is the final reporting authority for state electors

The key swing states with Democrat SoS’s Are Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina

Any shenanigans will likely be most effective in these states. States that can’t have electors determined by 12/14/20, will be omitted from electing the president. This can certainly change the calculus for the winner

I don't see how that will work. Elections normally take place, there is a winner, and the loser concedes. Once the loser concedes, it's over. If states have a month to determine electors after the election, then they never have to do it, because after one of the candidates concedes, they have dropped out of the race and can't win anymore.

 

[LizardGrad89]

Harris / Hiden will never sit in the WH.

WHY?

Because America will NEVER be a SOCIALIST country.

If the socialists think that their punk-ass riots are something to fear,
then they have no clue what a full out conservative civil war looks like.

Maybe they have forgotten what happened to their Rat asses in the last one....

In the way you think of socialism, you are correct. This will never be a socialist country. But you need to understand, Democrats do not want a totalitarian state similar to what the USSR had and China and North Korea have now. Democrats just want more money spent on the people and a tax system more heavily weighted towards those with vast sums of money. Getting assault rifles and automatic weapons off the street would also be nice. But if you think Democrats want the government to own the means of production, or worse, you think Democrats want a repressive totalitarian government in place of Democracy, you are way, way off.

Oh, and there will never be another civil war. Particularly not one with conservatives vs liberals. That's just silly.

 

[LizardGrad89]

Dems are still contesting the 2016 election. Good grief man.

Complaining isn't contesting. Do you even know what it means to contest an election? With your response, I seriously wonder if you do.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Complaining isn't contesting. Do you even know what it means to contest an election? With your response, I seriously wonder if you do.

Illegitimate impeachment hearings. Multiple coup attempts before and during Trump's first term. Claiming Trump was a Russian agent. Literally trying to overthrow a US government.

The scary thing is, you don't even realize that your party is the very danger to this country and everything it stands for that you THINK Donald J Trump is.

 

[IrishPokerDog]

I don't see how that will work. Elections normally take place, there is a winner, and the loser concedes. Once the loser concedes, it's over. If states have a month to determine electors after the election, then they never have to do it, because after one of the candidates concedes, they have dropped out of the race and can't win anymore.

Dems dont intend to concede......and will litigate to prevent a adverse declaration

 

[LizardGrad89]

Dems dont intend to concede......and will litigate to prevent a adverse declaration

And you know this based on...the linked article by the gateway pundit? Based on an interview with Steve Bannon? Because he, of course, is high up in the Democratic party and knows what they are thinking.

I read the article. It was hilarious, Did you see the bit where he was "indicted by corrupt Southern District of New York (SDNY) attorneys"? Well, this is untrue. He was charged by that office, yes, with wire fraud and money laundering, stemming from him allegedly stealing over a million dollars from the nonprofit We Build the Wall, which he started. But the INDICTMENT came down from the Grand Jury. So now he gets to defend himself in court. And from what I see, he's going to jail.

So yeah, he seems reliable.

And I don't get what you are claiming is going to happen. Dems will litigate? (Trying really really hard not to be condescending here. Damn, it's tough.) Well, the way to litigate this would be to request a stay in court. However, they would have to provide a compelling reason why there should be a stay. Like, hanging chads in Florida kind of a thing. Requesting a stay because "we don't like the outcome" would simply be denied. And so litigation would end. So why would they bother trying? I mean, don't Republican always complain about "ivory tower liberal elitists", and claim that the universities are full of them? Well, where do they teach law? Oh right, in universities. So presumably Democrats would have a pretty good understanding of the law and know how it works, and so know the futility of legal proceedings. I mean, why do you think that's never been done before? Do you think this is the first time anybody ever thought of it?

Look, 5 minutes of actual thought and you will see just how stupid that idea is.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

And you know this based on...

We have watched dems try to destroy this country for the last 4 years cause they didn't get their way in 2016.

Maybe you can't see it for all the smoke in your eyes from all the rioting happening in dem cities across the country.

Remember, this is the last presidential election for the democratic party. Starting to believe now, aren't you?

 

[BamaFan1137]

Trump was saying 4 years ago this is suddenly a grave threat to our Republic?

No. And if you can find where I said it was fine when Trump said it, I'll apologize and beg 1,000 pardons.

It's a threat, period....and i even made reference to that in the post that you responded to.

 

[BamaFan1137]

So....

Last election, when Trump stated 2 days or before the election that the only way he would lose was massive voter fraud, and if he did lose than he was going to get his lawyers to contest the election and blah blah blah Trump Speak blah, that was fine and good, but if some website that just makes stuff up claims the Dems are saying the exact same thing Trump was saying 4 years ago this is suddenly a grave threat to our Republic?

Please note Trump himself made these statements in 2016, and some unknown is making insinuations in 2020. Which you are all now taking so very, very seriously.

LOL, re-read my post and see if you can see how much shit "that I said" actually didn't come from my post...and instead came from your dumbass assumptions.

 

[BamaFan1137]

You don't understand Marxism if you think that.

Of course, by that, I know you really mean Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism. And in that you are 100% correct.

But, you remember the hippie communes of the 70's? Where there was no money and everybody just shared everything, free love, the whole bit? That was an attempt at Marxism. True Marxism has no government; the guiding principle is "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs". You say it's not free? It's the freest society possible. The only real problem with it is that it completely doesn't work. It's contrary to human nature. You know who understood human nature? Adam Smith. HE got it.

I'm thinking that was IPD's point.

 

[BamaFan1137]

In the way you think of socialism, you are correct. This will never be a socialist country. But you need to understand, Democrats do not want a totalitarian state similar to what the USSR had and China and North Korea have now. Democrats just want more money spent on the people and a tax system more heavily weighted towards those with vast sums of money. Getting assault rifles and automatic weapons off the street would also be nice. But if you think Democrats want the government to own the means of production, or worse, you think Democrats want a repressive totalitarian government in place of Democracy, you are way, way off.

Oh, and there will never be another civil war. Particularly not one with conservatives vs liberals. That's just silly.

You are very naive. I think you are well meaning...as people often are right before someone less well meaning breaks one off in their ass.

 

[BamaFan1137]

And you know this based on...the linked article by the gateway pundit? Based on an interview with Steve Bannon? Because he, of course, is high up in the Democratic party and knows what they are thinking.

I read the article. It was hilarious, Did you see the bit where he was "indicted by corrupt Southern District of New York (SDNY) attorneys"? Well, this is untrue. He was charged by that office, yes, with wire fraud and money laundering, stemming from him allegedly stealing over a million dollars from the nonprofit We Build the Wall, which he started. But the INDICTMENT came down from the Grand Jury. So now he gets to defend himself in court. And from what I see, he's going to jail.

So yeah, he seems reliable.

And I don't get what you are claiming is going to happen. Dems will litigate? (Trying really really hard not to be condescending here. Damn, it's tough.) Well, the way to litigate this would be to request a stay in court. However, they would have to provide a compelling reason why there should be a stay. Like, hanging chads in Florida kind of a thing. Requesting a stay because "we don't like the outcome" would simply be denied. And so litigation would end. So why would they bother trying? I mean, don't Republican always complain about "ivory tower liberal elitists", and claim that the universities are full of them? Well, where do they teach law? Oh right, in universities. So presumably Democrats would have a pretty good understanding of the law and know how it works, and so know the futility of legal proceedings. I mean, why do you think that's never been done before? Do you think this is the first time anybody ever thought of it?

Look, 5 minutes of actual thought and you will see just how stupid that idea is.

You are a condescending asshat. Any legal scholar could find dozens of legal precedents to request a stay over any election, ever. That is the fear. What part don't you get?

Hanging chads weren't a thing until they became a thing. There were hanging chads prior to 2000. And then suddenly...

 

[LizardGrad89]

You are a condescending asshat. Any legal scholar could find dozens of legal precedents to request a stay over any election, ever. That is the fear. What part don't you get?

Hanging chads weren't a thing until they became a thing. There were hanging chads prior to 2000. And then suddenly...

And you are a sweet, sweet man who can't see past the end of his own nose. Have a super day!

 

[goldmom]

Question - and yes, I should know this - is conceding defeat a necessary action or is it a time honored custom "among gentlemen"?
If you beat me 100-0 and I walk off the field refusing to say "good game, congrats" it doesn't mean you didn't win, it means I'm a sore loser...who still lost.

 

[BamaFan1137]

And you are a sweet, sweet man who can't see past the end of his own nose. Have a super day!

Then it should be easy for you to refute what I said in the post that you're responding to. I suspect that you won't, however.

 

[BamaFan1137]

Question - and yes, I should know this - is conceding defeat a necessary action or is it a time honored custom "among gentlemen"?
If you beat me 100-0 and I walk off the field refusing to say "good game, congrats" it doesn't mean you didn't win, it means I'm a sore loser...who still lost.

Politically speaking, it's unnecessarily necessary to avoid the poo-show. The outcome SHOULD be the same either way but in recognition of the peaceful transfer of power (or the continuation of power as it may be), it's a time honored tradition.

All things being equal, the results should be the same...we just lose time, money and the ability to govern.

 

[LizardGrad89]

Then it should be easy for you to refute what I said in the post that you're responding to. I suspect that you won't, however.

But you didn't really say anything.

That bit about stays? You realize that elections, even national ones, are run by the states, right? So you would have to file a stay in every state. And, you know, you have to, by law, have a REASON. You even have to have a reason to get a temporary stay, of, say 24 or 48 hours. What you do, if you don't like an election result, and it's close, is you ask for a recount. If it's not close, unless you have a major issue, such as, I don't know, mail delays that have kept thousands of ballots from arriving in time to be counted, you might ask for a stay to get those ballots in and counted. But that would only be a valid argument if the election in that state were very close. I could see that, but the presupposition here is that the dems will go to court in the event of a loss. With what argument? You see, you either don't know how the legal system works or you are being wilfully ignorant. Steve Bannon was talking out of his ass and you all are acting like it's gospel. As I said earlier, 5 minutes of thought will show you that it's not going to happen.

Or did you mean the part about me being a condescending asshat? Wasn't worth responding to. You made yourself look small by doing it, no need for me to make you feel even smaller.

 

[LizardGrad89]

LOL, re-read my post and see if you can see how much shit "that I said" actually didn't come from my post...and instead came from your dumbass assumptions.

Reread my post and tell me where I specified it was all about you.

 

[LizardGrad89]

No. And if you can find where I said it was fine when Trump said it, I'll apologize and beg 1,000 pardons.

It's a threat, period....and i even made reference to that in the post that you responded to.

Show me where an actual threat was made, other than in Steve Bannon's imagination.

Besides, as I repeatedly explained, even if it were true it would be an empty threat, because it wouldn't work.

 

[BamaFan1137]

But you didn't really say anything

I did...and you know i did...because you responded to it...so....

So you would have to file a stay in every state.

Would you? Are you sure about that? Pro-tip....you wouldn’t. The swing states would do the trick, wouldn’t it?

And, you know, you have to, by law, have a REASON.

Correct...like hanging chads for example.

What you do, if you don't like an election result, and it's close, is you ask for a recount. If it's not close, unless you have a major issue, such as, I don't know, mail delays that have kept thousands of ballots from arriving in time to be counted, you might ask for a stay to get those ballots in and counted. But that would only be a valid argument if the election in that state were very close. I could see that, but the presupposition here is that the dems will go to court in the event of a loss. With what argument?

Agree on the first part. I think it will very likely be close in swing states...so yes, viable.

Mail in ballot issues, complained about this far in advance, seem illegitimate imho. If i want my vote to be counted then I'm sending it in early.

system works or you are being wilfully ignorant. Steve Bannon was talking out of his ass and you all are acting like it's gospel.

I did? Can you show me where I acted like it was gospel? You make a lot of assumptions and somehow that is my fault? Ok.

Or did you mean the part about me being a condescending asshat? Wasn't worth responding to. You made yourself look small by doing it, no need for me to make you feel even smaller.

If you don’t like being called a condescending asshat then you should stop purposely acting like a condescending asshat. You also look small when you do it...and yep, I usually ignore it when you do it too.

 

[BamaFan1137]

Reread my post and tell me where I specified it was all about you.

You quoted my post and then responded to it. Are you shitting me with this crap?

Are you a real person?

 

[BamaFan1137]

Show me where an actual threat was made, other than in Steve Bannon's imagination.

Besides, as I repeatedly explained, even if it were true it would be an empty threat, because it wouldn't work.

Lizard....read slowly. I am saying it is a threat. I am saying that it is a threat even when Trump says that dumb ish. It will be stupid and harmful to my country if either side does it.

Is that coming through? How can I clarify that further? I became MUCH less likely to vote for a Democrat after the 2000 election. Guess why?

 

[LizardGrad89]

Lizard....read slowly. I am saying it is a threat. I am saying that it is a threat even when Trump says that dumb ish. It will be stupid and harmful to my country if either side does it.

Is that coming through? How can I clarify that further? I became MUCH less likely to vote for a Democrat after the 2000 election. Guess why?

And I'm saying it's not a threat, BECAUSE NOBODY HAS THREATENED IT. This is why I say you are taking Steve Bannon's nonsense as Gospel. Because if you weren't, you would see he hasn't got a clue what he's talking about, he's just doing what Republican leadership has been doing for forever: Spouting anything they think will rile up the voting base, and you would stop referring to it like it's some kind of accomplished fact. Even on the remote possibility he has a line to the Democratic leadership, and it were actually true, it would still be an empty threat. Because it is. Sorry you can't see it for what it isn't.

The 2000 election? I could probably come up with a logical reason, but it would almost certainly be wrong. You're a guy who would, when faced with a square peg and a round hole, get a hammer. I just don't think like that.

 

[LizardGrad89]

You quoted my post and then responded to it. Are you shitting me with this crap?

Are you a real person?

I can't reply to the board at large while quoting your post? What do you think I mean when I say "you all"? That I think you have multiple personality disorder?

 

[BamaFan1137]

And I'm saying it's not a threat, BECAUSE NOBODY HAS THREATENED IT. This is why I say you are taking Steve Bannon's nonsense as Gospel. Because if you weren't, you would see he hasn't got a clue what he's talking about, he's just doing what Republican leadership has been doing for forever: Spouting anything they think will rile up the voting base, and you would stop referring to it like it's some kind of accomplished fact. Even on the remote possibility he has a line to the Democratic leadership, and it were actually true, it would still be an empty threat. Because it is. Sorry you can't see it for what it isn't.

The 2000 election? I could probably come up with a logical reason, but it would almost certainly be wrong. You're a guy who would, when faced with a square peg and a round hole, get a hammer. I just don't think like that.

Yes...actual and verifiable history has lied to us again. And stupid me, I've been fooled by it.

 

[BamaFan1137]

I can't reply to the board at large while quoting your post? What do you think I mean when I say "you all"? That I think you have multiple personality disorder?

What were you saying about square pegs, round holes and hammers again?

Can you at least understand why I thought you were responding to me when you quoted my post and then responded to it?

And this feels obvious but I'll take the bait...when someone like you says, "you all" most people assume someone like you means, "you and people like you" which would in fact include me. That feels rather self-evident but here we are.

 

[LizardGrad89]

What were you saying about square pegs, round holes and hammers again?

Can you at least understand why I thought you were responding to me when you quoted my post and then responded to it?

And this feels obvious but I'll take the bait...when someone like you says, "you all" most people assume someone like you means, "you and people like you" which would in fact include me. That feels rather self-evident but here we are.

Not playing your little game of deflection.

Bannon is a liar, a cheat and a fraud, anyone who believes anything he says is a fool.

 

[instaGATOR]

In the way you think of socialism, you are correct. This will never be a socialist country. But you need to understand, Democrats do not want a totalitarian state similar to what the USSR had and China and North Korea have now. Democrats just want more money spent on the people and a tax system more heavily weighted towards those with vast sums of money. Getting assault rifles and automatic weapons off the street would also be nice. But if you think Democrats want the government to own the means of production, or worse, you think Democrats want a repressive totalitarian government in place of Democracy, you are way, way off.

Oh, and there will never be another civil war. Particularly not one with conservatives vs liberals. That's just silly.

Clueless little Lizzy in a tizzy and always being an arrogant ass-hat, while thinking that he's got the answers.
The Dim-Moe-Rats do want exactly what you falsely claim that they don't want.
And even if that's not what they want, once started down that path, it's where they would end up.
Also, if you believe that a civil war is not possible, then you are whistling past the Rat's massive graveyard.

Silly could never encompass your own blatant stupidity, so sorry chump, you are what you sound like.... 😛