YOU'RE FIRED!

[Miles]

.


Joe Biden, now with 279 electoral votes and Trump with only 213 or 214 electoral votes (depends on whom your watching) is the clear President Elect of the U.S.A..

Trump received the news while golfing in Florida. (Where else would he be?)


Upon hearing of Biden's 279 electoral votes. . . .



“Frankly, we did win this election.” * "Yup." "You sure did your highness." "yes siree!"

"Shortly before his defeat by Joe Biden was called, and with the nation deeply divided, Donald Trump began his Saturday by tweeting inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud. Then he went to play golf.

The president, the White House pool reporter wrote, appeared for the motorcade to his course in Sterling, Virginia “wearing white Maga cap, windbreaker, dark slacks, non-dress shirt, shoes that look appropriate for golfing”.

Trump’s dedication to playing golf while in office has been a source of continuing controversy – particularly because he memorably and repeatedly lambasted his predecessor, Barack Obama, over how often he played the game."
source

And

"Trump Was Golfing When He Lost the Presidency"
Where were you when you found out the 2020 presidential election was called for Joe Biden? I was at home, blogging. My neighbors appear to have been “at the store, shopping for airhorns.” We know where President Trump was: at the golf course. According to the Associated Press, Trump left for his golf course in Virginia earlier this morning and hasn’t yet come back.

Thoughts and prayers for his caddie."
source

And Trump's response?

"Donald Trump is refusing to concede the presidential election to Joe Biden even after the Associated Press, and every US television news network, declared him the president-elect, saying the race is “far from over” and promising an intense legal fight.

“The simple fact is this election is far from over. Joe Biden has not been certified as the winner of any states, let alone any of the highly contested states headed for mandatory recounts, or states where our campaign has valid and legitimate legal challenges that could determine the ultimate victor,” the president said in a statement, released by his campaign.

“Beginning Monday, our campaign will start prosecuting our case in court to ensure election laws are fully upheld and the rightful winner is seated. The American people are entitled to an honest election: that means counting all legal ballots, and not counting any illegal ballots,” he said, continuing to claim there is widespread voter fraud but without evidence."
source

So, kind members, how do you think Trump will be handling his defeat in the coming months. Will he actually go ahead with an "intense legal fight"? Will he welcome the Bidens into the White House in January as is the custom? Will he even attend Biden's inauguration? Some TV pundits are doubtful.

*source


.

[Bust Nak]

I am against no excuse absentee voting because then voters would bypass showing ID. This is unlike someone who is out of state or country who is not in a position to vote in person and show ID.

Show ID when dropping off the vote? Essentially just extending the voting window by weeks.

If someone is getting away with it, it means there is a hole, and that others can go through the same hole. One instance of successful fraud is therefore a chance for mass fraud, and whether it occurs is dependent on how many people know about and decide to utilise that hole. Arguably unscrupulous people who get away with it are likely to share the technique.

If there is a sure fire way of getting a way with it, sure, but the getting away you speak of here require a whole bunch of dumb luck with multiple failure point in the system, as such mass fraud can be expected to be caught.

If it's not feasible to plug every hole then we shouldn't even have voting because there's no reason to trust that the process has been fair to the losers. To this day I think Al Gore probably won that election. And I would hope that now that there's talk of Trump being defrauded out of votes as well, there can be bipartisan support, yes, for plugging every single hole.

We can be reasonably sure when the margin of error is smaller than the difference in vote.

One person being cheated out of their vote is unacceptable. One ballot in the garbage is unacceptable. One dead person voting is unacceptable. Why? Because one cheat is all it takes for fairness to be destroyed. If the process is no longer fair it's not worth having.

Surely whole voting blocs being marginalised is more unacceptable, more fairness destroying than this?

[The Barbarian]

Surely whole voting blocs being marginalised is more unacceptable, more fairness destroying than this?

That's the whole purpose of doing it. Even republicans admit that there's no evidence of widespread voter fraud. But they need to either change their ways to appeal to more voters, or find a way to keep "the wrong people" from voting. They've decided on the latter.

[AgnosticBoy]

If the final results, or the results presented on the day of election were valid, then why did this happen in a New York election:

In one case, county officials discovered a batch of dozens of uncounted ballots weeks after the election. In another instance, it was revealed that officials in Oneida County did not process the applications of more than 2,400 voters, making them ineligible to vote on Election Day. Then there was the “StickyGate” scandal, in which election officials could not determine whether a batch of disputed ballots had been counted because of Post-it notes that had mysteriously fallen off the ballots.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp

These are the types of "manual" processing, any manual processing for that matter, that are open to "errors" or fraud. I suppose the distinction in some cases is a matter of if the "error" was intentional or not. Either way, this is why people should not presume that the voting process is just as simple as handing your ballot to an official and having it scanned and immediately counted. That's far from the truth. I can come up with about a half a dozen ways that cheating could've been committed just by reading the scenarios given in this report. In this case, the flawed manual processing benefitted a Republican.

In this case, a Democrat incumbent is calling for manual recounts. Should we still be against security and manual RECOUNTs, even after courts step in to certify the results, which happened in this case?! When it came to Trump, I suspended judgement for some time and I was questioned for that. Perhaps some were questioning my standard to show that I wasn't the neutral Independent that I proclaimed to be, or worse, that I was a Trump supporter in disguise?! Now that the tables have turned, I question how some Democrats would handle the case brought up in the article. ARe these same Democrats going to simply accept the results? Or are they going to question or even suspend judgement, (which I was questioned and faulted for doing when it came to Trump), until a manual recount is conducted (assuming that it's not too late)?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #114]

Isn't this an example of the system working? These errors were caught.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #114]

Isn't this an example of the system working? These errors were caught.

Thats a separate point. It shows the system being able to catch some errors, but that doesn't mean it's near good enough to catch all or even most errors. It also doesn't help that some errors are caught AFTER an election and that's only the case IF a candidate presses the matter and is able to get recounts, something which we know is not ordinarily done by all 50 states. Would some of these errors be caught if no one pressed for more action (e.g investigations, recounts, etc.) that go beyond what would ordinarily be in place for an ongoing election? There are still disputes which is why the Democrat in a New York race wants a recount despite what has been caught so far. Perhaps a recount would catch even more errors?

My main point though was about how I was questioned for not wanting to accept the presidential election results until after fraud/errors were investigated. I speculated that if it were a Democrat losing the race and there were allegations of fraud, that many Democrats would be doing what Trump did as far as disputing the election. Well, now we have that scenario when it comes to the New York race that I bought up earlier. So I'd like to see how those Democrats who questioned me would respond here.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #116]

You don't see the difference between "the result is too close, I want a recount" and "I lost, therefore my opponent cheated?"

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #116]

You don't see the difference between "the result is too close, I want a recount" and "I lost, therefore my opponent cheated?"

Who argued that? Not even Trump did that although some Democrats speculate that it applies to Trump.

Either way, I don't see how it's relevant to any of my arguments here. Not registering 2,400 voters when their applications were turned in, which happened in a New York election, is not a matter of being too close when it comes to results.

[Bust Nak]

Who argued that? Not even Trump did that...

Why are you still giving Trump the benefit of a doubt given the hindsight you have now?

Either way, I don't see how it's relevant to any of my arguments here. Not registering 2,400 voters when their applications were turned in, which happened in a New York election, is not a matter of being too close when it comes to results.

Had the margin been higher than 2400 then it wouldn't have mattered, it matters here because the results were closer. I also don't see how voter ID would have help those 2400 voters.

[AgnosticBoy]

Who argued that? Not even Trump did that...

Why are you still giving Trump the benefit of a doubt given the hindsight you have now?

Again, who made that argument that "I lost therefore you cheated"? If no one did, why is it relevant to my points?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #120]

Arguably, Trump did. Demonstrably, plenty of Trump supporters did.