|
Post by quetee on Nov 5, 2020 20:58:29 GMT
Well, there's more red on the map than blue so that means I win.... (gotta say it in Trump's voice)
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 5, 2020 21:23:57 GMT
Well....I'd say he pulls a "Stacey Abrams" (Democrat) who invented this sad stuff btw .......where he will "acknowledge Biden as the "legal" winner" but never actually concedes to Biden's victory himself....... sort of like Abrams did to Brian Kemp in Georgia. A pox on both parties ....
|
|
flasuss
Badass
Posts: 1,830
Likes: 1,615
|
Post by flasuss on Nov 5, 2020 21:47:14 GMT
Never. Not only he'll stay in the White House as long as he could, he'll try everything to sabotage Biden, and if nothing succeeds, he'll probably resign so he doesn't have to go to Biden's inauguration.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Nov 6, 2020 4:22:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Nov 6, 2020 5:20:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Nov 6, 2020 5:20:29 GMT
Well....I'd say he pulls a "Stacey Abrams" (Democrat) who invented this sad stuff btw .......where he will "acknowledge Biden as the "legal" winner" but never actually concedes to Biden's victory himself....... sort of like Abrams did to Brian Kemp in Georgia. A pox on both parties .... Except in that case, Abrams literally had that election stolen from her. I think her refusal to concede was kind of justified, unlike Trump's bullshit claims.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Nov 6, 2020 5:38:10 GMT
He’ll sell the nuclear codes before he leaves.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Nov 6, 2020 5:45:23 GMT
Yikes at 11:21
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2020 14:43:50 GMT
pacinoyes Abrams' situation in Georgia is not in any way comparable to Agent Orange's blatant lies. From Vogue:
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Nov 6, 2020 16:14:39 GMT
I have no idea what a Trump "concession" might look like. I assume when it becomes absolutely clear he lost, he quietly moans about fraud and then trudges off in a dejected huff, kind of like how he walked about of that press conference yesterday. No manners, no dignity, just a 70 year-old manbaby sulking off into the sunset.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 6, 2020 16:28:11 GMT
Well....I'd say he pulls a "Stacey Abrams" (Democrat) who invented this sad stuff btw .......where he will "acknowledge Biden as the "legal" winner" but never actually concedes to Biden's victory himself....... sort of like Abrams did to Brian Kemp in Georgia. A pox on both parties .... Except in that case, Abrams literally had that election stolen from her. I think her refusal to concede was kind of justified, unlike Trump's bullshit claims. Agree to disagree Cake .......... she still lost by any reasonable assessment (50k+) and Trump sounds a lot like her is all I'm saying - he concedes the "legality" but not that the opponent "won". Is she as bad as Trump here..........no..........but I don't think she was justified.....at all. The poll should have had this option any way - conceded the legality but not that he lost.......that's obviously what'll happen....... ************************************************************** When pressed by the New York Times Magazine, Abrams makes some concessions. “I have no empirical evidence that I would have achieved a higher number of votes. However, I have sufficient, and I think legally sufficient, doubt about the process to say that it was not a fair election,” she said. She also tries to move “I won” in this context to the realm of the entirely metaphorical. "My larger point is, look, I won because we transformed the electorate, we turned out people who had never voted, we outmatched every Democrat in Georgia history,” she adds.www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/05/17/fact-checkers_give_stacey_abrams_a_pass_on_victory_claim_140358.html
|
|
chris3
Badass
I just ordered a slice of pumpkin pie...
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 1,045
|
Post by chris3 on Nov 6, 2020 16:39:18 GMT
It's starting to look like the courts aren't going to help him overturn any swing states. Recounts aren't going to make a difference anywhere (besides maybe GA?), and at this point the SC would have to overturn multiple state calls. Republicans are jumping ship, he was literally all by himself at the press briefing last night spouting his usual horseshit, and judges are throwing out Trump campaign lawsuits left and right.
He will NEVER concede, but it's looking more and more likely that he's out of options, and thus will leave the White House on Jan. 20 but will forever publicly insist that the election was stolen from him. That's totally fine with me since it'll be hilarious as fuck to listen to him whine about it for the next ten years on a podcast when he's far, far away from the Oval Office. He will forever be President "I didn't lose! The CONTROLLER was broken!" Trump.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Nov 6, 2020 18:04:52 GMT
It's starting to look like the courts aren't going to help him overturn any swing states. Recounts aren't going to make a difference anywhere (besides maybe GA?), and at this point the SC would have to overturn multiple state calls. Republicans are jumping ship, he was literally all by himself at the press briefing last night spouting his usual horseshit, and judges are throwing out Trump campaign lawsuits left and right. He will NEVER concede, but it's looking more and more likely that he's out of options, and thus will leave the White House on Jan. 20 but will forever publicly insist that the election was stolen from him. That's totally fine with me since it'll be hilarious as fuck to listen to him whine about it for the next ten years on a podcast when he's far, far away from the Oval Office. He will forever be President "I didn't lose! The CONTROLLER was broken!" Trump. He'll get on TV and yell out the N-word on a loop before he utters concede.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Nov 6, 2020 23:34:08 GMT
Except in that case, Abrams literally had that election stolen from her. I think her refusal to concede was kind of justified, unlike Trump's bullshit claims. Agree to disagree Cake .......... she still lost by any reasonable assessment (50k+) and Trump sounds a lot like her is all I'm saying - he concedes the "legality" but not that the opponent "won". Is she as bad as Trump here..........no..........but I don't think she was justified.....at all. The poll should have had this option any way - conceded the legality but not that he lost.......that's obviously what'll happen....... ************************************************************** When pressed by the New York Times Magazine, Abrams makes some concessions. “I have no empirical evidence that I would have achieved a higher number of votes. However, I have sufficient, and I think legally sufficient, doubt about the process to say that it was not a fair election,” she said. She also tries to move “I won” in this context to the realm of the entirely metaphorical. "My larger point is, look, I won because we transformed the electorate, we turned out people who had never voted, we outmatched every Democrat in Georgia history,” she adds.www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/05/17/fact-checkers_give_stacey_abrams_a_pass_on_victory_claim_140358.htmlNot sure how she wasn't justified given what Tyler already posted. Not being able to prove that she would have been able to achieve a higher number of votes is I think beside the point... it's really the second part of her statement about having legally sufficient doubt about the election process that should be highlighted here. It's also worth noting that she ultimately didn't legally challenge the election results. Actually conceding would have been disappointing imo because in a way it would normalize the voter suppression that took place, so it was important that she drew attention to it in that way. "Concession means to acknowledge an action is right, true or proper,” Abrams said. “As a woman of conscience and faith, I cannot concede that.”
link
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 6, 2020 23:53:39 GMT
Agree to disagree Cake .......... she still lost by any reasonable assessment (50k+) and Trump sounds a lot like her is all I'm saying - he concedes the "legality" but not that the opponent "won". Is she as bad as Trump here..........no..........but I don't think she was justified.....at all. The poll should have had this option any way - conceded the legality but not that he lost.......that's obviously what'll happen....... ************************************************************** When pressed by the New York Times Magazine, Abrams makes some concessions. “I have no empirical evidence that I would have achieved a higher number of votes. However, I have sufficient, and I think legally sufficient, doubt about the process to say that it was not a fair election,” she said. She also tries to move “I won” in this context to the realm of the entirely metaphorical. "My larger point is, look, I won because we transformed the electorate, we turned out people who had never voted, we outmatched every Democrat in Georgia history,” she adds.www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/05/17/fact-checkers_give_stacey_abrams_a_pass_on_victory_claim_140358.htmlNot sure how she wasn't justified given what Tyler already posted. Not being able to prove that she would have been able to achieve a higher number of votes is I think beside the point... it's really the second part of her statement about having legally sufficient doubt about the election process that should be highlighted here. It's also worth noting that she ultimately didn't legally challenge the election results. Actually conceding would have been disappointing imo because in a way it would normalize the voter suppression that took place, so it was important that she drew attention to it in that way. "Concession means to acknowledge an action is right, true or proper,” Abrams said. “As a woman of conscience and faith, I cannot concede that.”
linkNah ........She lost, AND Kemp didn't break any laws, AND she didn't prove sh it.........she lost legally, fair and square - so she should concede - that's it ......and she's actually so nuts she sat in on the GOVERNOR's roundtable - 2 YEARS LATER ! - at the Democratic Convention with people who, you know WON their elections! How delusional is that? Again, not equating her exactly with Trump .........but she is not too far off from him imo........ and she invented this "not conceding" BS ........ a woman of conscience and faith.............please, spare me that BS Stacey.......
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Nov 7, 2020 4:18:13 GMT
Not sure how she wasn't justified given what Tyler already posted. Not being able to prove that she would have been able to achieve a higher number of votes is I think beside the point... it's really the second part of her statement about having legally sufficient doubt about the election process that should be highlighted here. It's also worth noting that she ultimately didn't legally challenge the election results. Actually conceding would have been disappointing imo because in a way it would normalize the voter suppression that took place, so it was important that she drew attention to it in that way. "Concession means to acknowledge an action is right, true or proper,” Abrams said. “As a woman of conscience and faith, I cannot concede that.”
linkNah ........She lost, AND Kemp didn't break any laws, AND she didn't prove sh it.........she lost legally, fair and square - so she should concede - that's it ......and she's actually so nuts she sat in on the GOVERNOR's roundtable - 2 YEARS LATER ! - at the Democratic Convention with people who, you know WON their elections! How delusional is that? Again, not equating her exactly with Trump .........but she is not too far off from him imo........ and she invented this "not conceding" BS ........ a woman of conscience and faith.............please, spare me that BS Stacey....... Saying Kemp didn't technically break any laws (a disturbingly permissive approach to viewing the relationship of morality to law) doesn't excuse blatant racially-motivated voter suppression. There was an obvious conflict of interest with him as Georgia's secretary of state overseeing the election anyway... which he clearly exploited. Claiming that she lost fair and square is what's "delusional" (along with saying she's not far from Trump wtf ). But okay, agree to disagree I guess....
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 7, 2020 16:05:15 GMT
Nah ........She lost, AND Kemp didn't break any laws, AND she didn't prove sh it.........she lost legally, fair and square - so she should concede - that's it ......and she's actually so nuts she sat in on the GOVERNOR's roundtable - 2 YEARS LATER ! - at the Democratic Convention with people who, you know WON their elections! How delusional is that? Again, not equating her exactly with Trump .........but she is not too far off from him imo........ and she invented this "not conceding" BS ........ a woman of conscience and faith.............please, spare me that BS Stacey....... Saying Kemp didn't technically break any laws (a disturbingly permissive approach to viewing the relationship of morality to law) doesn't excuse blatant racially-motivated voter suppression. There was an obvious conflict of interest with him as Georgia's secretary of state overseeing the election anyway... which he clearly exploited. Claiming that she lost fair and square is what's "delusional" (along with saying she's not far from Trump wtf ). But okay, agree to disagree I guess.... Why are you putting these 2 emoji's "sarcastically" directed to ME? - and I didn't do that to you did I? Nope.............. I did it to her - like I said "factually" she f'n lost.......and "legally" she f'n lost........if we want to argue morality to law relationships she had avenues to discuss that/work for change in that regard and that had nothing to do with conceding the race like she should have. It actually is as simple as saying we just "agree to disagree" without any sarcastic emoji next to it - it's a political difference of opinion, or do people not have those anymore and its attack anyone who has a position different from you? ..............no one is "supporting" racism or racially-motivated voter suppression.......
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Nov 7, 2020 18:06:40 GMT
Nah ........She lost, AND Kemp didn't break any laws, AND she didn't prove sh it.........she lost legally, fair and square - so she should concede - that's it ......and she's actually so nuts she sat in on the GOVERNOR's roundtable - 2 YEARS LATER ! - at the Democratic Convention with people who, you know WON their elections! How delusional is that? Again, not equating her exactly with Trump .........but she is not too far off from him imo........ and she invented this "not conceding" BS ........ a woman of conscience and faith.............please, spare me that BS Stacey....... Saying Kemp didn't technically break any laws (a disturbingly permissive approach to viewing the relationship of morality to law) doesn't excuse blatant racially-motivated voter suppression. There was an obvious conflict of interest with him as Georgia's secretary of state overseeing the election anyway... which he clearly exploited. Claiming that she lost fair and square is what's "delusional" (along with saying she's not far from Trump wtf ). But okay, agree to disagree I guess.... Everyone sing: One of these things is not like the other... haha.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 7, 2020 18:16:51 GMT
Saying Kemp didn't technically break any laws (a disturbingly permissive approach to viewing the relationship of morality to law) doesn't excuse blatant racially-motivated voter suppression. There was an obvious conflict of interest with him as Georgia's secretary of state overseeing the election anyway... which he clearly exploited. Claiming that she lost fair and square is what's "delusional" (along with saying she's not far from Trump wtf ). But okay, agree to disagree I guess.... Everyone sing: One of these things is not like the other... haha. Actually they are almost exactly alike - both lost.........both refused to admit they lost........but Trump hasn't stood in back of a sign that says "President Trump" AFTER he lost ..........like Abrams did (see below) ...........but check back with me in February......
|
|
erickeitel
Junior Member
The beauty of life is in small details, not in big events.
Posts: 464
Likes: 383
|
Post by erickeitel on Nov 7, 2020 19:07:48 GMT
No earlier than Inauguration Day, I'd say. After that, who knows.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Nov 7, 2020 22:53:26 GMT
Saying Kemp didn't technically break any laws (a disturbingly permissive approach to viewing the relationship of morality to law) doesn't excuse blatant racially-motivated voter suppression. There was an obvious conflict of interest with him as Georgia's secretary of state overseeing the election anyway... which he clearly exploited. Claiming that she lost fair and square is what's "delusional" (along with saying she's not far from Trump wtf ). But okay, agree to disagree I guess.... Why are you putting these 2 emoji's "sarcastically" directed to ME? - and I didn't do that to you did I? Nope.............. I did it to her - like I said "factually" she f'n lost.......and "legally" she f'n lost........if we want to argue morality to law relationships she had avenues to discuss that/work for change in that regard and that had nothing to do with conceding the race like she should have. It actually is as simple as saying we just "agree to disagree" without any sarcastic emoji next to it - it's a political difference of opinion, or do people not have those anymore and its attack anyone who has a position different from you? ..............no one is "supporting" racism or racially-motivated voter suppression....... She "factually" and "legally" lost........... in an election that was purposely stacked against her. Simply stating that her loss is a legal fact willfully ignores how it's a product of corrupt behavior (which has been entrenched in the laws itself). It just doesn't make sense to me why you think she should have conceded the race when there was obvious wrongdoing. If you agree that voter suppression is wrong, then why is not conceding so offensive in this case? Abrams saying that her conscience and faith motivated her refusal to concede is not BS... at all.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 8, 2020 0:08:40 GMT
Why are you putting these 2 emoji's "sarcastically" directed to ME? - and I didn't do that to you did I? Nope.............. I did it to her - like I said "factually" she f'n lost.......and "legally" she f'n lost........if we want to argue morality to law relationships she had avenues to discuss that/work for change in that regard and that had nothing to do with conceding the race like she should have. It actually is as simple as saying we just "agree to disagree" without any sarcastic emoji next to it - it's a political difference of opinion, or do people not have those anymore and its attack anyone who has a position different from you? ..............no one is "supporting" racism or racially-motivated voter suppression....... She "factually" and "legally" lost........... in an election that was purposely stacked against her. Simply stating that her loss is a legal fact willfully ignores how it's a product of corrupt behavior (which has been entrenched in the laws itself). It just doesn't make sense to me why you think she should have conceded the race when there was obvious wrongdoing. If you agree that voter suppression is wrong, then why is not conceding so offensive in this case? Abrams saying that her conscience and faith motivated her refusal to concede is not BS... at all. "Even if every provisional ballot not counted and every rejected absentee ballot had been awarded to Abrams, it would not have necessitated a runoff, much less overcome Abrams’s vote deficit."That is what the Washington Post said (link below) - this is widely confirmed too of course. She could not win the vote and she lost in court challenges. What am I supposed to do then champion "her feelings" over the actual rule of law? I'm not "that" offended by Abrams - I don't care if she conceded - she was still locked out of the Governor's mansion ........I'm more amused by her........she's standing behind a Governor sign, and she's sitting at a Governor's roundtable.....come on that's the very definition of delusional .........and that's fine to me, let her play her fantasy act...............that's the electoral process and institutions working........and it just worked on November 3 as well. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/30/did-racially-motivated-voter-suppression-thwart-stacey-abrams/
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Nov 8, 2020 5:53:24 GMT
She "factually" and "legally" lost........... in an election that was purposely stacked against her. Simply stating that her loss is a legal fact willfully ignores how it's a product of corrupt behavior (which has been entrenched in the laws itself). It just doesn't make sense to me why you think she should have conceded the race when there was obvious wrongdoing. If you agree that voter suppression is wrong, then why is not conceding so offensive in this case? Abrams saying that her conscience and faith motivated her refusal to concede is not BS... at all. "Even if every provisional ballot not counted and every rejected absentee ballot had been awarded to Abrams, it would not have necessitated a runoff, much less overcome Abrams’s vote deficit."This is a tangential point that doesn't account for the 700,000 voters who were purged from the rolls in the year before the election. If you don't actually care if Abrams conceded, and are just amused by her doing something as harmless as standing behind a Governor sign (reminding people how effed up that election was), then that doesn't really suggest that she and Trump are "almost exactly alike" does it.....since the latter has been, you know, attacking democracy by spreading conspiracy theories and disinformation.......... in addition to not conceding.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 8, 2020 8:47:22 GMT
"Even if every provisional ballot not counted and every rejected absentee ballot had been awarded to Abrams, it would not have necessitated a runoff, much less overcome Abrams’s vote deficit." This is a tangential point that doesn't account for the 700,000 voters who were purged from the rolls in the year before the election. If you don't actually care if Abrams conceded, and are just amused by her doing something as harmless as standing behind a Governor sign (reminding people how effed up that election was), then that doesn't really suggest that she and Trump are "almost exactly alike" does it.....since the latter has been, you know, attacking democracy by spreading conspiracy theories and disinformation.......... in addition to not conceding. * It is not "tangential" - it is pertinent rather - the actual number of votes count in an election........and those names being purged was legally upheld. Now I'm supposed to do what here - place YOUR feelings above the law and process? This is why I said we just disagree - we have a differing POV on a political issue in the Ga election............... It hardly justifies 10 posts between us (?) * What Abrams did is a form of fraud - it is not actually "harmless" - I just find it funnier in the overall scheme of life and do not live in Georgia. But she presented her loss as a win, and publicly discounted every vote that was cast against her by the people of Georgia - which by any standard was significant (a difference of 55K) .........that's attacking democracy too and the election (and legal) process as well. I'm posting in a thread called "How Long Will it Take For Trump to Concede" - I said he will pull a "Stacey Abrams" and concede legality only while maintaining the legality of the vote was then also corrupt.........yes, almost exactly alike.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Nov 8, 2020 9:32:27 GMT
just an interjection to remind that GOP lawmakers literally tried through the courts to have 130K legally cast votes in a largely black and democratic county in Texas and if that had been upheld it too would've fallen under "law and process" but wouldn't have changed a damn thing about it's transparent intent which was to suppress black votes. Even the conservative judges realized that, but it would've been wrong regardless of how those judges and the Texas supreme court ruled. Hundreds of thousands of voters were suppressed in Abrams' election, period, which makes that election unfair and at best tenuously legitimate regardless of what the courts said.
Trump has no leg to stand on here. He complained baselessly that the election was rigged months ago and is still making the same complaints without a single shred of evidence.
|
|