(Canada)
1 Like
24 million views
They and all the other groups, including all the armed militia showing up at government buildings, should be designated terrorists.
I’m sure you’ll be pleased to know Biden has additional Patriot Act style 9/11 legislation ready to go to keep those Republicans “domestic terrorists” under control, as well as additional gun control restrictions that will be disproportionately applied fo Republicans as well (since the gun-using criminals seem to be concentrated in heavily Democratic groups).
Meanwhile, if you can’t stand calls for violence or domestic unrest, here are a few others you might put on your list to impeach / deplatform / prosecute.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MAJTOURE/status/1348276058408308736
1 Like
“GOP representative: Some Republicans voted to challenge election results due to safety concerns”
1 Like
You should probably take that admin email stating it comes from you up with the admins/you.
Until then I suggest not posting, since it appears you are both posting in this thread and the arbiter of disagreements in the thread, plus the whole censoring posts despite posting that you are not in favor of censoring posts thing.
Nice sleight of hand, but I’m not buying the BS. It’s Raffensberger’s consent decree, with the Democrats, that wrankles me, not the count itself.
CLAIM: President Donald Trump is “wrong” that Georgia made checking signatures on absentee ballots “impossible.”
VERDICT: MOSTLY FALSE. Georgia’s consent decree made checking signatures so difficult as to be practically impossible.
Georgia is undertaking a hand recount of votes in the recent presidential election, which was narrowly won in the state by former Vice President Joe Biden. But the recount is not checking signatures on absentee ballots, the Trump campaign says.
President Donald Trump and his team have objected, because checking signatures is a key safeguard against fraud.
On Saturday, Trump tweeted that Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) had made signature verification impossible for absentee ballots in a March consent decree:
> The Consent Decree signed by the Georgia Secretary of State, with the approval of Governor @BrianKempGA, at the urging of @staceyabrams, makes it impossible to check & match signatures on ballots and envelopes, etc. They knew they were going to cheat. Must expose real signatures!
>
>
>
> — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 14, 2020
Twitter labeled that as “disputed,” and the Associated Press did a fact check.
The AP said that Trump was “wrong,” adding: “There is nothing in the consent decree that prevents Georgia election clerks from scrutinizing signatures.”
Curiously, however, the AP did not link to the actual consent decree, which is hard to find.
It is somewhat easier to find the underlying state law, signed by Gov. Kemp in April 2019, which relaxes ballot signature requirements. As National Public Radio noted, Kemp was under pressure to fix some of the problems Democrats blamed for his victory in the 2018 gubernatorial race (which Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams never properly conceded). Democrats claimed that Kemp benefited from racial “voter suppression.” So Kemp acceded to some of their demands in the new law.
As NPR noted, the law “blocks county election officials from rejecting absentee ballots because of mismatched signatures.” An absentee voter with a mismatched signature is mailed a provisional ballot and given the opportunity to “cure” the mismatch. The voter has to do so with an affidavit, and with proper ID, before a deadline, to ensure the ballot will count.
The March 2020 consent decree is posted on the website of the Perkins Coie law firm. Attorney Marc Elias, the Democratic lawyer who hired Fusion GPS to produce the phony “Russia dossier” in the 2016 election, triggering the entire “Russia collusion” hoax, is listed as the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, who include several Democratic political organizations.
The consent decree describes a new procedure for reviewing signatures. When there is a mismatch, an election official must consult with two other officials. Then they have to vote. The ballot can only be rejected if a majority agrees that there is a mismatch. Then, all of the officials must write their names on the rejected envelope before starting the “cure” process.
The practical effect of that new requirement is to make signature matching impossible. With hundreds of thousands of absentee ballots to be counted, it is difficult to pull additional officials off their assignments to examine a signature. And with a rejection tarnished as racist “voter suppression,” no official is going to want his or her name listed on the envelope.
So while “nothing in the consent decree” explicitly prevents a signature check, the process is so onerous — and, for the officials, personally risky — that there is almost no chance it will happen widely. Trump is closer to the truth than the AP.
Georgia’s embattled Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, claimed that the signature matching process was “strengthened” this year. That is because officials received extra training — in rules that make checking ballot signatures almost impossible.
Good try, though. Do you have any more misleading stuff to post? And how long have you been working for Stacey Abrams?
Gosh, I return here after a weekend of football and find close to one hundred great posts. Thanks to all, and I do mean ALL, posters.
OK, looking forward now here is what I have:
Do you remember impeachment I? Think hard. Nancy pocketed the House’s impeachment action for a number of days prior to sending it over to the Senate. And the Senate cannot act until the impeachment reaches them formally.
Reading through all of your posts, above, I can envision Nancy once again allowing some time to pass before her sword of Damocles ultimately descends. Timing . . . . is everything. The case against Trump might require a bit more time to ripen. In any event, Nancy should have the sword in hand by Wednesday.
The real, frankly the sole, coups de gras would materialize only with disqualification. Now I’m challenged generally when it comes to Senate voting. This has been demonstrated on another thread. But I’m clear that Democrats would need 67 votes to “remove” Trump. Remove is in quotes there because Trump would already be out of office. However:
My best understanding is that the Senate needs to “remove” Trump before he can be disqualified from ever running again for POTUS. The discussion I’m following focuses on how many Senate votes it takes to disqualify. And some are asserting only 51 votes are required. So:
If the Democrats can time things up just right and “remove” Trump, it might be possible for them also to disqualify him!
Word on the street is that a disqualified Trump would surely turn to the SCOTUS for reinstatement. It is anyone’s guess how that appeal would go, since Trump by then would no longer be the Executive.
ETA
I nearly forgot another aspect of “removal”. It would strip Trump of his government pension, probably not a big deal for him since he has never accepted his salary as POTUS. And it could also take away support for the Trump Presidential Library, along with other perks routinely granted to past Presidents.
But perhaps the most important “hit” to Trump, of “removal”, would be to take away the Secret Service protection for him and his family. This would leave all of them open to every left wing nut case out there with a gun. And if one of them shot Trump in the head, can you imagine the celebrations on the left? Heck, San Francisco would probably declare a public holiday! 
2 Likes
Yeah, apparently you missed the part where the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) did a signature match on 15k random absentee ballots and found no issues. As in, none.
Go back and play with your friends, in a world where the election leaders are wrong, the courts are wrong, and fantasies prevail.
4 Likes
You are operating in an alternative universe. The tiny sample size there is the least of the deficiencies. Consider:
The description of the report issued by the Secretary of State’s office on December 29, however, does not appear to meet the nine criteria established for an election audit by the non-profit Election Audit, an organization whose members include Common Cause and Voter Verification, in a 2018 report which identified “Principles and Best Practices for Post-Election Audits.”:
EXAMINATION OF VOTER-VERIFIABLE PAPER BALLOTS: Audits require human examination of voter-marked paper ballots — the ground truth of the election. Voter-marked paper ballots may be marked by hand or by ballot marking device. Audits cannot rely on scanned images or machine interpretations of the ballots to accurately reflect voter intent.
TRANSPARENCY: Elections belong to the public. The public must be able to observe the audit and verify that it has been conducted correctly, without interfering with the process.
SEPARATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES: Neither the policy and regulation setting fo the audit, nor the authority to judge whether an audit has satisfied those regulations, shall be solely in the hands of any entity directly involved with the tabulation of the ballots or the examination of ballots during the audit.
BALLOT PROTECTION: All the ballots being tabulated and audited must be verifiably protected from loss, substitution, alteration or addition.
COMPREHENSIVENESS: All jurisdictions and all validly cast ballots, including absentee, mail-in and accepted provisional ballots, must be taken into account. No contest should be excluded a priori from auditing, although some contests may be prioritized.
APPROPRIATE STATISTICAL DESIGN: Audits should produce and scientifically assess evidence about tabulation accuracy while making efficient use of available resources. A risk-limiting audit (RLA) with a small risk limit assures a large chance that an incorrect outcome will be detected and corrected.
RESPONSIVENESS TO PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES: Audit processes must include a way to respond to circumstances that come to light affecting particular devices, ballots or contests.
BINDING ON OFFICIAL OUTCOMES: Audits, including any full hand counts that result, must be completed in time to change official outcomes if hand counts so indicate.
INVESTIGATING DISCREPANCIES AND PROMOTING CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT: The data gathered from post-election audits should be analyzed and used to continuously improve voting processes.
Raffensberger, straight up, is a fraud.
Observation
Not that proof is really required. But we appear to have it just the same:
It has been widely asserted that Biden’s victory (if that is what it was) back in November was more about hatred for Trump and less about voters’ support for Biden. It is not at all necessary today to dig deep in order to perceive Biden’s preference against impeachment. He cannot come right out and declare it. But the preference is clear nevertheless.
But, as was the case in November, it is not today about Biden but rather about Trump hatred. Biden is trying to lead but his putative “followers” are simply not following. I even have to wonder if Harris is following, though of course she will remain silent.
Biden will take the oath next week. If he is unable to gather his flock, he will be off to a VERY weak start.
Happy to read (see) your back, shinobi.
The radical lefts are going wild with all their repeats. Drives me crazy! They love it… I just skip those posts.
But I’m just skipping along merrily waiting from times to get better. The bombers (don’t take it litterly) now want to get rid of the NRA. Gotta start hiding our guns.
Saw some repeats of crazy Nancy on 60 Min. She barely could handle the questions. Her teeth almost fell out of her mouth. 
1 Like
This is pursuant to my post, above, regarding Secret Service protection for Trump. It turns out this is an extremely complex matter. I mean for example, there is removal while POTUS remains in office and then there is “removal” after POTUS no longer is in office. I really do not completely understand all of the possibilities. However, I did locate this piece which goes into quite a bit of detail:
Will it be easy for the left to use Trump for target practice after he leaves office?
Draw your own conclusions.
I think Biden might be a sufficiently decent guy to order protection for Trump should it come to that. I don’t think a Trump assassination would be good for Biden . . . . or for the country.
2 Likes
Anyone that doesn’t support Trump winning is a fraud. 
Too bad none of your lawyers had the guts to say this in court, because they knew disbarment could follow.
4 Likes
I take your point . . . generally speaking.
I think the Trump “legal team” on this was a bunch of Shmoos. Their actions were not smart and not at all timely. I’m not a lawyer, though I have done a bit of legal work in the (distant) past. So maybe there is a lot of stuff I simply do not understand. But I do not believe Trump was well or effectively represented.
I’m curious when Google and Apple were appointed judge and jury? If a platform such as Parlor is such a problem, it’s a problem between Parlor and the DOJ. It’s vigilantism.
Just because you say it over and over doesnt make it true. You may think that, but it’s an opinion not a fact.
I actually appreciate their posts, which I find valuable and moving. What happened last Wednesday was self-evidently very wrong. The more I learn about the details, the clearer for me becomes the magnitude of the offense.
Trump is not a Constitutional scholar. He must rely on his advisors. He patently believed Pence had the power to change the election outcome. But Pence did not have that power. That should have been common sense. But Trump believed the bad counsel he was getting and a tragedy ensued. Sorry, but there is no alternative except to blame Trump for this error.
I’m a staunch Conservative. I believe Trump might have won the election. But I do not think it is OK for any group to sack the US Capital building.
3 Likes