Countdown To President Trump Re-election

WonderfulLordJesus

WonderfulLordJesus

New member

LOL! That's good! Yes, time for the Sodomites to put on the angel of light hat, 2 Corinthians 11:14.

Saw that headline Joe Biden is calling for unity, such a hoot. All I could think is alright, then, let's do our very best to learn by Democrat example, the four years of Mr. Trump. I mean, it has to be alright to emulate them, right? They are such idiot hypocrites, to the bone.

Incidentally, you remember how the narrative was Hillary had the election stolen form her? Lo and behold, now there's no such thing as voter fraud in 2020, even were a whole graveyard, from the 19th century, to vote for Biden.

I'm telling you, buy popcorn!




Psalms 118:9 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes.

Psalms 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

Psalms 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.
 
The Berean

The Berean

Well-known member
ok doser said:
Barron/Sandmann in 2044! :banana:
Click to expand...

Your boy Trump may actually run again in 2024! Perhaps Trump can make Ivanka his VP candidate? :rotfl:

I guess he's trying to become Grover Cleveland 2.0? (For those who do not know President Grover Cleveland is the only US president to serve non-consecutive terms)

The American political clown show will continue!


https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-tel...122059380.html
 
Idolater

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Idolater said:
It's our long tradition. That tradition was fractured and overturned by an emergency change to voting rules, due to the covid, back before we knew whether we could have a real, traditional, in-person Election Day. By the time we knew that we were going to be able to have an in-person Election Day, we should have undone that rules change.

If people are out there who literally don't leave their homes because of the covid, then they are entitled to absentee voting, but anybody who goes out to stores, to get takeout, to the post office, could have voted. But instead tens of millions of ballots were mailed in.
Because the mail-in ballots overwhelmingly favored the challenger and his party, to the tune of 80% for Biden and the Democrats, that's obvious evidence that the rules change benefited just Biden and the Democrats, at the expense of the president and the Republicans. That is not right, and is not a free and fair election. Any honest person should agree.
In being generous, I've said in the past that nobody knew that this rules change was going to influence the outcome of the election, but come to think of it, someone at the time did say that it was unfair and would make the election unfair: President Trump. But nobody listened to him.

Hopefully the law courts will see this accurately and render a favorable ruling for the president, because I believe he is entitled to a favorable ruling.
Click to expand...
Oh well. The Supreme Court didn't grant cert because they didn't even feel the case had enough merit to hear it. Even though it's unsatisfying, at least it was brought before them, in an original jurisdiction attempt. They said no.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not qualified to render any sort of authoritative opinion, but I still feel that the election rules changes that were made because of the covid, and the (at the time) fear that we weren't going to be able to have an in-person Election Day, obviously favored Democrats and the challenger, at the direct expense of Republicans and the president.

I think the lawyers needed to spin a yarn where the huge absentee ballot advantage for Democrats made this election unfree and unfair. They didn't do that, so far as I could tell. They focused on evidence consistent with a story of fraud. The problem with fraud is that it didn't rise to the level where it would have needed to be, to actually overturn the election results.

Whereas what actually did overturn the results, was ballot harvesting, which isn't fraudulent, what it is though, is something that can't be done in exurban and rural communities (which is like 85% of the country), which already puts Democrats at an advantage because population-dense cities are clogged with Democrat voters, but this year this inherent advantage was jolted by a sudden relaxation of requirements for submitting absentee ballots, meaning that ballot harvesting could operate machine-like and generate the millions of ballots needed to swing the states named in the dismissed lawsuit.

It's not that anything criminal occurred (except for fraud that wasn't big enough to change the election results). The suit that I would have thought to bring before the court, was that the president has a right that was abrogated because of the rules changes, made because of the covid. He is entitled to have the election not go the way that it went. It doesn't mean he is entitled to win the election, but he is entitled to lose it fair and square, according to how it would have gone had there been no covid-related rules changes. These rules changes i m o, and I would have thought to argue this in court, were not fair and square, because of the reason above, that ballot harvesting was too easy for the Democrat party to do in blue cities.
 
Yorzhik

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Idolater said:
Oh well. The Supreme Court didn't grant cert because they didn't even feel the case had enough merit to hear it. Even though it's unsatisfying, at least it was brought before them, in an original jurisdiction attempt. They said no.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not qualified to render any sort of authoritative opinion, but I still feel that the election rules changes that were made because of the covid, and the (at the time) fear that we weren't going to be able to have an in-person Election Day, obviously favored Democrats and the challenger, at the direct expense of Republicans and the president.

I think the lawyers needed to spin a yarn where the huge absentee ballot advantage for Democrats made this election unfree and unfair. They didn't do that, so far as I could tell. They focused on evidence consistent with a story of fraud. The problem with fraud is that it didn't rise to the level where it would have needed to be, to actually overturn the election results.

Whereas what actually did overturn the results, was ballot harvesting, which isn't fraudulent, what it is though, is something that can't be done in exurban and rural communities (which is like 85% of the country), which already puts Democrats at an advantage because population-dense cities are clogged with Democrat voters, but this year this inherent advantage was jolted by a sudden relaxation of requirements for submitting absentee ballots, meaning that ballot harvesting could operate machine-like and generate the millions of ballots needed to swing the states named in the dismissed lawsuit.

It's not that anything criminal occurred (except for fraud that wasn't big enough to change the election results). The suit that I would have thought to bring before the court, was that the president has a right that was abrogated because of the rules changes, made because of the covid. He is entitled to have the election not go the way that it went. It doesn't mean he is entitled to win the election, but he is entitled to lose it fair and square, according to how it would have gone had there been no covid-related rules changes. These rules changes i m o, and I would have thought to argue this in court, were not fair and square, because of the reason above, that ballot harvesting was too easy for the Democrat party to do in blue cities.
Click to expand...
This is a good point. It isn't only the fraud ballots made from the mail-in system, but it's the ballot harvesting that was allowed by the courts when that practice should clearly be illegal.

So the question could then be asked, if the people didn't stop the obvious fraud of vote harvesting in the past, don't the people deserve the outcome of any future election in the future after it was allowed?
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
Yesterday was disappointing but many had warned that SC would not/could not take the Texas case...not on merits but on technical legal grounds. Which is what happened.

Other routes are still very much open.

We may yet lose what's left of the Republic. But I will not write it off until the moment Trump addresses the nation and concedes, walking away from his landslide win. Not a moment before.
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
musterion said:
Yesterday was disappointing but many had warned that SC would not/could not take the Texas case...not on merits but on technical legal grounds. Which is what happened.

Other routes are still very much open.

We may yet lose what's left of the Republic. But I will not write it off until the moment Trump addresses the nation and concedes, walking away from his landslide win. Not a moment before.
Click to expand...

Well that's a wrap.
 
ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
musterion said:
Well that's a wrap.
Click to expand...
It's gonna be a rough next couple of years with an empowered "squad" and no brakes on the progressive agenda.

On the other hand I'm looking forward to watching Joe Biden solve the problem of race relations in America that so frustratingly eluded his mentor, despite his best efforts
 
Jefferson

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Kamala Harris has not yet given up her senate seat. She is not convince she and Biden are going to win. I guarantee you that she knows more the inner workings than you do. There is a reason why the Dems want Trump arrested now and are panicking unable to wait for January 20. You nervous Dems?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top