The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

#4,151
#4,151
BigOrangeMojo said:
I think DeSantis would flip back AZ, GA, and NV. I don't disagree with your blue collar thoughts but with this economy, I think the upper Midwest is in play for Rs. I would suspect the Rs would make it as much about a referendum about Kamala and she's just not popular in those states...
Click to expand...

I don't think DeSantis has a fart in a whirlwinds chance of winning the general. Both he and Trump need to sit this one out. And no I don't have a clue who I would want at this point, none of the declared or expected to declare excites me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gcbvol and AM64
#4,152
#4,152
BigOrangeMojo said:
I think DeSantis would flip back AZ, GA, and NV. I don't disagree with your blue collar thoughts but with this economy, I think the upper Midwest is in play for Rs. I would suspect the Rs would make it as much about a referendum about Kamala and she's just not popular in those states...
Click to expand...

DeSantis, if he were to win nomination, would become Trump in the media. By the time the Election rolls around, the Left will have then paint him as the next Hitler who wants to take away womens rights and put minorities back in slave chains. The Left will come out to vote against DeSantis same as Trump, except DeSantis will be missing a significant portion of Trump only voters.

Could be wrong, its all hypothetical, but I just dont see how DeSantis wins. His flip flop on Ukraine alone was a huge gaffe right out of the gate...now magnify that with him being THE nominee and having the weight of Western media propaganda against him.
 
#4,153
#4,153
BowlBrother85 said:
Trump knew better than to specifically state what it was that he wanted Raffensperger to do, and he knows how to cover his butt during conversations such as this ...

.... and once again, if Trump had truly only been interested in uncovering voter fraud, he would not have focused so heavily on his margin of defeat (11,779) throughout the call. The purpose of Trump's call to Raffensperger was not to prompt Raffensperger to conduct an investigation into his claims of fraud, which Trump knew the Georgia Secretary of State's office had already done. The purpose of the call was to overturn the outcome of his defeat in Georgia.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you’re agreeing with us that trump said nothing illegal within that conversation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and LouderVol
#4,157
#4,157
volgr said:
Ok, explain.
Click to expand...
Every damn thing about it is speculation .... "even the faintest hint of fraud" makes up an 11K vote margin? What a joke! Has the thought crossed your mind that some fraud might have actually worked to Trump's advantage?
 
#4,161
#4,161
BowlBrother85 said:
Every damn thing about it is speculation .... "even the faintest hint of fraud" makes up an 11K vote margin? What a joke! Has the thought crossed your mind that some fraud might have actually worked to Trump's advantage?
Click to expand...

A small sample ballot review was done in AZ by signature experts. They found 7% of ballots had an unmatched signature. Which side voted overwhelmingly by mail? Find out Dem/GOP vote by mail %, then apply that to the 7%, then apply that to the total vote by mail count in GA and tell me if the 11k difference was wiped out.

I think you know what the answer is, so dont strain yourself on the math.
 
#4,162
#4,162
volgr said:
A small sample ballot review was done in AZ by signature experts. They found 7% of ballots had an unmatched signature. Which side voted overwhelmingly by mail? Find out Dem/GOP vote by mail %, then apply that to the 7%, then apply that to the total vote by mail count in GA and tell me if the 11k difference was wiped out.

I think you know what the answer is, so dont strain yourself on the math.
Click to expand...
That is a crock of $hit.
 
#4,164
#4,164
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
Because you say so? Lmao.
Click to expand...
Because you can get a "small sample" review to say practically anything you want it to ... and that review was commissioned by Arizona's Republican-controlled state legislature, who was seeking to discredit Biden's victory in Arizona. These are the same people who hired Doug Logan's "Cyber Ninjas" .... I'm sure we all remember what a farce that was.
 
#4,165
#4,165
BowlBrother85 said:
Trump knew better than to specifically state what it was that he wanted Raffensperger to do, and he knows how to cover his butt during conversations such as this ...

.... and once again, if Trump had truly only been interested in uncovering voter fraud, he would not have focused so heavily on his margin of defeat (11,779) throughout the call. The purpose of Trump's call to Raffensperger was not to prompt Raffensperger to conduct an investigation into his claims of fraud, which Trump knew the Georgia Secretary of State's office had already done. The purpose of the call was to overturn the outcome of his defeat in Georgia.
Click to expand...
of course he was calling about the status of the election results as they related to him. I can't think of any politician that has called in to question an election they won.

Do you really think Hillary would be arguing about the 2016 election being rigged by the Russians if she had won?

and being careful with your words is how everyone stays out of trouble. Its a politician's job to say a lot of words, without saying anything; or to imply more than they actually say. its how they all stay in office.

Again, because its Trump you guys act like its the worst thing since ever, when it goes on everyday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#4,167
#4,167
BowlBrother85 said:
Because you can get a "small sample" review to say practically anything you want it to ... and that review was commissioned by Arizona's Republican-controlled state legislature, who was seeking to discredit Biden's victory in Arizona. These are the same people who hired Doug Logan's "Cyber Ninjas" .... I'm sure we all remember what a farce that was.
Click to expand...

Actually it was court ordered and both sides picked their own expert. 7% was the lower of the 2 numbers, the other was like 11%. 11% was the State picked expert, 7% was the "Trump side" expert.
 
#4,168
#4,168
LouderVol said:
Again, because its Trump you guys act like its the worst thing since ever, when it goes on everyday.
Click to expand...
Calls from the President to a Secretary of State after an election in effort to overturn his defeat, don't go on every day. Sorry. You are trying to normalize Trump's behavior. It's disgusting.
 
#4,169
#4,169
volgr said:
Actually it was court ordered and both sides picked their own expert. 7% was the lower of the 2 numbers, the other was like 11%. 11% was the State picked expert, 7% was the "Trump side" expert.
Click to expand...
Post a link to it. I will take a look at it.
 
#4,170
#4,170
BowlBrother85 said:
Because you can get a "small sample" review to say practically anything you want it to ... and that review was commissioned by Arizona's Republican-controlled state legislature, who was seeking to discredit Biden's victory in Arizona. These are the same people who hired Doug Logan's "Cyber Ninjas" .... I'm sure we all remember what a farce that was.
Click to expand...

You could also back out the % rejection needed to overcome the almost 12k deficit. What do you think that number would be? Significantly less than 7%?
 
#4,171
#4,171
volgr said:
You could also back out the % rejection needed to overcome the almost 12k deficit. What do you think that number would be? Significantly less than 7%?
Click to expand...
Post a link to the ballot review that you are talking about. I will give it a look.
 
#4,173
#4,173
Also, one thing that is lost here is the date of the phone call between Trump and Raffensperger. It was January 2nd. The meeting of the electoral college had taken place 18 days earlier, with a legally chosen set of electors casting their votes, which gave Biden 306 electoral votes and the victory.

The only 2 things left to do as of January 2, 2021 were both just procedural formalities :

1) The roll call of electoral votes by the Vice President, and formal certification of the electoral college vote at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

2) President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration on January 20, 2021.

The Supreme Court had declined to get involved. It was over. As of the day of that phone call, it was no longer possible for Trump to overturn the outcome anyway. It is ridiculous to suggest that anyone other than a fool like Donald Trump would still think that they had a chance to win the election at that point.
 
#4,175
#4,175
volgr said:
If you didnt know about the court order review why did you come out so strong against it?
Click to expand...
Once again ... post a link to that ballot review, and I will give it a look. If I was wrong, I will admit to it. I'm not often wrong ... but it has happened.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top