Posted on 08/15/2023 10:53:35 AM PDT by spirited irish
Yeah, it’s stuff like that we’ll never see again.
That is true but more directly, since it is your vote they quite intentionally stole, it is you vs evil.
Yeah, the GOPe wants Brian Kemp to take one for the team and volunteer for the nomination since all the rest of them are dweebs.
Did you know that since 1982, the Republican Party had been legally prohibited from contesting elections due to suspected vote fraud, because of a legal agreement called the Consent Decree the GOP made with the Democrat Party?
The 1982 Consent Decree allowed the Dems Carte Blanche voter/election fraud for years.
How many think that the democrats would have ever “consented” to something like this?
https://www.jonathanepmoore.com/the-1982-consent-decree-and-connecting-the-dots/
Dark Helmet was right: “Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.”
You are assuming the Stormy Daniels accusations are true but I have never seen anything that would indicate they are, just the opposite.
I bet we could add judges and quite a few RINOs to the list as well.
Bribery and Fraud are predicate offenses for RICO. I am of the opinion that the Bidens, Clintons and DNC formed a criminal conspiracy and can/should be prosecuted under RICO.
However, it wont happen if Trump is not re-elected. Which is why the left is pushing so hard to try and keep him off the ballot.
p
the 75 Million voters for Trump should all show up at their local police stations and demand to be arrested...cuz we are
” challenging legitimate election results. “
going to deter and chill people from challenging Marxist agenda
Hi.
Everyone who is paying attention knows that this DNC/big tech/corp media and the federal government lawfare is to insure Donald J Trump cannot be reelected.
Each indictment is of course to put him in jail, but to also insure the former president can’t campaign. Staggered discover in different jurisdictions, gag orders, excessive bail, etc.
Sorry folks, we can’t vote ourselves out of this mess.
5.56mm
No its not Allen. 🙄
It’s going to deter and chill people from free speech.
That’s the agenda comrades
Marxism on the march
Being a Democrat means never having to accept an election loss
by Timothy P. Carney, Senior Columnist, Washington Examiner,
October 05, 2021 12:07 PM
Before former President Donald Trump refused to accept an election he clearly lost, whipping up a series of conspiracy theories and idiotic lawsuits and stoking deadly riots at the U.S. Capitol, there were the Democrats. They literally have not accepted a single presidential election loss this century.
After Trump beat Hillary Clinton in 2016, she declared that Trump was an “illegitimate president.” As the Washington Post aptly characterized it, she also “suggested that ‘he knows’ that he stole the 2016 presidential election.”
This was in 2019, after Democrats in Congress and hostesses on MSNBC spent years trying to prove a false conspiracy theory that Russia somehow rigged the election in Trump’s favor.
The previous time the Republicans won, George W. Bush in 2004, Sen. Barbara Boxer and dozens of House members objected to Ohio’s electoral votes going for Bush, even though he won the state by more than 100,000 votes.
Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, promoted a conspiracy theory whereby enough votes were switched from Kerry to Bush by voting machines and enough voters were wrongly purged from voter rolls that it “could have been” determinative of the result in Ohio and, thus, the whole presidential election.
And the time before that? Well, famously, Al Gore sued in Florida and in the Supreme Court to overturn George W. Bush’s insanely narrow victory in that state. Democratic congressmen, even after the lawsuits ended, called the result a “coup d’etat.” They also challenged the electoral votes.
Why do I bring up the distant past? Because Democrats continue to peddle the line, which would be called “dangerous” if a Republican made the same argument, that Bush “stole” the 2000 election.
Watch this video of Terry McAuliffe in 2004, claiming Republicans stole the 2000 election. McAuliffe, who has never recanted that false claim, is now the Democratic nominee for the governor of Virginia and has the backing of the entire Democratic establishment.
That’s because the Democratic and liberal establishment say the same thing as McAuliffe:
And here’s Jonathan Chait at New York magazine last month, saying Bush never won the election fairly.
The Drum/Chait case, which is the most sophisticated version of the argument, is that the most liberal recount method utilized by a consortium of newspapers yielded a Gore victory. That recount method was one of the methods that counted overvotes, described by the Orlando Sentinel as “ballots rejected because machines detected markings for more than one candidate but when examined reveal voter corrections and other clear signs of intent.”
But every other version of the recount by the newspapers yielded a Bush win.
How does Chait decide the only method ultimately favorable to Gore was the right one? Conveniently, Chait thinks that’s the fairest method. We don’t need to argue which was the fairest method, though, because the Chait Method was a post-hoc innovation by the newspapers explicitly not permitted by law.
The recount ended when the Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore, striking down a ruling by the Florida Supreme Court. But had the Florida Supreme Court ruling stood, all 67 counties would have counted some ballots, and, according to the newspaper, this count would have yielded a Bush win, the New York Times reported: “[I]f Florida’s 67 counties had carried out the hand recount of disputed ballots ordered by the Florida court on Dec. 8, applying the standards that election officials said they would have used, Mr. Bush would have emerged the victor by 493 votes.”
Gore’s campaign was asking for a different, less defensible remedy — a selective hand recount only in four very pro-Gore counties. Again, the New York Times noted that that too would have resulted in a Bush win: “Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.”
Again, the facts establish that if Gore had won the Bush v. Gore court case, Gore would still have lost the 2000 election. It isn’t even controversial unless you are unfamiliar with the facts.
Returning to the Chait Standard, requested or ordered by neither the Florida Supreme Court nor the Gore campaign, Chait’s evidence that it was the real standard, rests on this passage in the Orlando Sentinel:
“If the recount had gone forward, it might have been expanded beyond what the Florida Supreme Court ordered by the man responsible for overseeing it, Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis. The recount was halted before he decided how it would finally work, but Lewis said in an interview earlier this year that he would not have ignored the overvote ballots. Though he stopped short of saying he definitely would have expanded the recount to include overvotes, Lewis emphasized, ‘I’d be open to that.’ ”
Again, “I’d be open to that.” The judge in charge of the recount would “be open” to maybe implementing a counting method that would have given Gore the victory. That’s a very thin thread upon which to hang a claim that Gore really won the election.
Florida law, on the other hand, was not open to that. The law explicitly said, “If an elector marks more names than there are persons to be elected to an office or if it is impossible to determine the elector’s choice, the elector’s ballot shall not be counted for that office.”
Note that first clause — and the “or.” A ballot with two votes marked for president “shall not be counted for that office.” So, counting overvotes, which Lewis said he would consider, would have been illegal.
“Without overvotes,” the Orlando Sentinel explained, “Gore could not have won a statewide recount, the ballot study shows. In every recount scenario examined, Bush would have reaped more of the undervotes.”
You can always argue that the law should allow a more liberal vote-counting standard, but in fact, the law didn’t allow it. Under Florida law, Bush won. Had courts overturned that victory, they would have been rewriting the law in order to give Gore the victory. That would have been stealing the election.
Want On or Off list? Frmail me.
George W. Bush would have won easily in 2000 if not for the 24-year-old drunk driving arrest becoming public five days before the election. It was estimated that that cost him 4 million votes.
I saw a book in a bookstore once by RFK, Jr., who said, among other things, that the 2004 election was stolen (in Ohio).
They’re on the side of whoever pays their wages and has the power to send them to jail if they disobey.
************
Exactly.
This idea that the military is going to cross a Constitutional line and save the Republic is a joke.
However, Internet bloggers selling hopium make a killing, so these very unlikely theories will continue.
People follow money and authority.
Right now, conservative minded people have neither the money or authority to implement changes to our multifaceted corrupt system.
I don’t understand how such an educated and so-called intelligent man can continue to say what he does about the legal cases against Trump, (knowing its the entire Democrat Party involved in the hate and persecution); and yet continue to support Democrats. I whole-heartedly agree with his legal assessement; but he would probabyly go out and vote for Biden if the election were today. The man appears to be double-minded on this issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.