Yes, that ix exactly what you are doing and have been doing since the election. You're being a sore loser.
Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
- Status
Not really. Barr isn't just someone who occasionally ''appears'' to aid Trump. Its a known pattern with him. His very first act as attorney general was lie and say the Mueller report exonerated Trump and him using his office to help Trump was a consistent outcome. And we know that Barr adheres to the ideology that the president can basically do whatever he wants. That's why he got the job to begin with.
But many judges who throw out Trump's cases don't seem nearly as partisan even if their sympathies lie with Trump. Republicans installed many of those judges, Trump himself installed many of those judges so that they join the judges who the Republicans didn't install with the same outcome its meaningful. As far as the judges goes its pretty much a bipartisan consensus that Trump's cases have to be thrown out. Meanwhile with Barr we have an extremely partisan Attorney general chosen because he was extremely partisan and who lives up to that expectation.
Monitoring the election is kinda their job isn't it?
You tell me, because it seems like the handling of the election was given over to the individual states.
No, no, no. He's not a sore loser. He's ironically acting out the exact responses of a hypothetical sore loser for Socrates's sake. There's 100% a real difference between the two. Trust him.
The blindingly obvious answer is that they monitored the individual states' handling...
There was constant video CCTV of the area. Gabriel Sterling, as well as state election investigators, went over the entire period frame-by-frame, and can account for the entire chain of custody for those ballots.
...unlike the hyper-partisan Republican speakers, exclusively from whom the claims come? Unlike Mellissa Carone, who appears to be an insane conspiracy-theorist and is also hyper-partisan in favour of Trump and against the Democrats?
I was talking about Melissa Carone's account, where she claims that boxes of fake ballots were brought in, disguised as food deliveries, not the unsupervised midnight ballot counters.
Yes, unlike them. It's not their necks on the line if fraud is discovered. The process is and should be adversarial, that's why observers from political parties exist and are identified as such. They're doing what they're supposed to be doing, observing and reporting.
Barr is a politician serving in the executive branch of government. Judges are the judiciary. They do not do the same jobs and are not equivalent.
Observing fact and reporting exaggerations, half-truths, and outright lies.
It is a lot of their asses on the line if this election isn't deemed fraudulent, because they have invested so heavily into supporting Trump, as they say, "In for a penny, in for a pound."
They choose a side and are now acting to assure the victory of said side, despite said side already losing.
Heck, the neutral observes, who doesn't have skin in the game, supports the claim that the election was fair. Those are the people you should be listening to.
It's like you're assuming that every Republican is just evil inside and out, so they can't possibly be motivated by good intentions. Orange Man Bad and people who vote for Orange Man are Bad.
I guess that's what a healthy diet of propaganda for 5 years does to a person...
You mean like the Libertarian postal worker who voted for Jo who gave testimony, whose video I posted a while back?
Well, the Cyber Security people may be brought in specifically to assist in an investigation if it involves government network and information security. So if the accusation is that the voting machines are in fact not airgapped and are being interefered with electronically to change a vote outcome then they would be involved.
However I do not think that the monitoring of a WHOLE election is their job unless it’s one of those esoteric things where the Secret Service do both presidential close protection and investigate currency counterfeiting because their patent agency is the US Treasury.
Last edited:
I'm assuming that everyone involved in the affidavits and the several unofficial hearings, as well as a large part of the official ones, are, so not every republican, just a lot of the ones that seem to scream and yell for attention.
And you aren't bad for voting for Trump. Did you make a bad decision? I believe so. Did you do it because you don't actually understand politics and because the appeal of populism and a clear enemy in an age where clear enemies are hard to find was just too irresistible? It seems possible.
Though, gracious as I am, I'll certainly consider the actual republican poll workers who actually dared state that the election was not fraudulent and that they candidate lost, more reasonable than the limelight seekers and conspiracy panderers you so frequently link from Twitter.
And pointing to a single person outside the room seems to be a reach. Thena gain, postal workers have long been known to understand the intricacies of the electoral process, and are typically informed of every detail about the process, heck, bet they could tell you who killed JFK, or at least one of them, pissed off that his candidate lost could make up an interesting story about it.
See, you don't even know what his testimony consists of and you're already mocking him and all postal workers.
Last edited:
So, you think it's a "travesty" that there isn't 24/7 CCTV footage of every polling station's delivery area, even though the boxes of ballots are then brought into a room where there is constant video footage, and are overseen by representatives of both parties.
This is getting absurd. Melissa Carone came out with a stream of mostly-incoherent, drunken-sounding rambling nonsense. The fact anybody even entertained this indicates to me that Giuliani's claims are being given more benefit-of-the-doubt than they should be. It was cringe-inducingly embarrassing to watch.
But they have "skin in the game", and consider something on the line (the Trump presidency) if the count gets through. They've also been told that there will be fraud by someone they trust. They have just as many, if not more, conflicting motivations to say what they're saying.
"constant video footage" by media isn't the same as CCTV, since the purpose of CCTV is to cover every angle. Media are going to be focused on different things. Plus, they can leave, like the people at State Farm Arena left, and we know that thanks to the CCTV.
So yes, it is a travesty.
Also "she seems drunk!" seems like the new "I smelled weed, step out of the car, sir", a claim that's subjective enough that you can throw it at anyone.
You know what else is mostly-incoherent, drunken-sounding rambling nonsense that's cringe-inducingly embarrassing to watch?
(Watch Amega pop in and come to her defense because he only cares when black women are insulted)
And you should expect them to have motivations, just like we should expect democrats to have a motivation to commit and/or cover-up fraud, because they hate Trump. Boom, now everyone has a motivation.
Are we really sure we should trust a man who calls himself the inventor of email based on the fact he created a piece of software he called "email" rather than creating, you know, actual email as the world knows and understands it?
Wow, you're really reaching to find just ANYTHING that you can use to discredit a person, aren't you?
OK. I don't know what to tell you, then. The majority of countries don't have CCTV in every counting centre. Its a bit of a rarity AFAIK. If you think that's a travesty, then its a travesty every President so far has been fine with.
What a bizarre non-sequitur.
- Status