Joe Biden Wins - Becomes 46th president of the United States

[Xzi]

That's besides the point. Even if it is only Trump causing it, he has done a fine job muddying up the clarity all by himself.

Right...which is why it's best not to take his toddler tantrums too seriously. He's been doing it for the last four years.

Evidence "presented by his team". There is enough evidence to cause doubt in a significant amount of people.

These are the same people that would believe Voldemort is real if Trump told them so. That's what a cult of personality is. They're going through the various stages of grief after having lost the election, and continuing to grasp on to the fantasy of voter fraud is classic denial with a bit of bargaining mixed in.

So far, we have seen the people on the opposing side of the aisle of those claims resist an open investigation.

No, no we haven't. There haven't been any investigations because you need something to base an investigation on, it's as simple as that. Such as, "holy shit there are a lot of irregularities in these 100,000 votes, we need to start an investigation into that." There's been nothing like that discovered, despite Trump people being in every room where votes were being counted (and recounted) around the country.

I can't remember a single thing Trump has done that he hasn't used as leverage for something else. A little premature to make such a claim, on your part.

Biden's already receiving the presidential briefing, and Trump has less than two months left in office. There's nothing left to "leverage," even his own judges have abandoned him. He's just going to pardon some more of his corrupt buddies, and try to break as much shit as possible on his way out of the White House, like the petty bitch he is.

 

[tabzer]

Right...which is why it's best not to take his toddler tantrums too seriously. He's been doing it for the last four years.

It's "best to ignore Trump." Is an opinion where the reality is a contradiction.

These are the same people that would believe Voldemort is real if Trump told them so. That's what a cult of personality is. They're going through the various stages of grief after having lost the election, and continuing to grasp on to the fantasy of voter fraud is classic denial with a bit of bargaining mixed in.

That is not true. I'm talking about people who can only witness and not influence the election. But it also looks like you had personally decided on a conclusion way before the antics even began. You have no frame of mind to be objective.

No, no we haven't. There haven't been any investigations because you need something to base an investigation on, it's as simple as that. Such as, "holy shit there are a lot of irregularities in these 100,000 votes, we need to start an investigation into that." There's been nothing like that discovered, despite Trump people being in every room where votes were being counted (and recounted) around the country.

Correct, not your burden. Maybe you aren't interested because it only has potential of hurting you--unless looking good for doing it was on the table. It seems like the latter is not a possibility, so that makes you look suspicious to the public, regardless of what the law demands. It looks like it is pleading the 5th, not an attempt to represent this "transparency" you speak of.

Biden's already receiving the presidential briefing, and Trump has less than two months left in office. There's nothing left to "leverage," even his own judges have abandoned him. He's just going to pardon some more of his corrupt buddies, and try to break as much shit as possible on his way out of the White House, like the petty bitch he is.

Again, that's what someone who already made up their mind would count on, not what they can certainly astute.

 

[tabzer]

https://www.marklevinshow.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/301/2020/11/Memorandum-Opinion-Filed.pdf

It looks like the evidence will be given a gander after all. Whether it amounts to anything... we will have to wait to see.

 

[Xzi]

It's "best to ignore Trump." Is an opinion where the reality is a contradiction.

I didn't say ignore him, I said don't take him too seriously when he's whining like this. He's used to always getting way due to being born wealthy.

That is not true. I'm talking about people who can only witness and not influence the election.

Those people also have biases and agendas, and their biases are particularly strong if they're willing to believe that millions of cases of voter fraud occurred despite evidence existing for only about ten of those cases.

You have no frame of mind be objective.

I literally opened this conversation by telling you that Republican elections experts gave this one the all clear. Objectively, Trump is full of shit. Objectively, this should not be surprising to you by now.

Correct, not your burden. Maybe you aren't interested because it only has potential of hurting you--unless looking good for doing it was on the table. It seems like the latter is not a possibility, so that makes you look suspicious to the public, regardless of what the law demands. It looks like it is pleading the 5th, not an attempt to represent this "transparency" you speak of.

No, you still aren't understanding. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans would be the ones to carry out an investigation, IF THERE WERE ANY BASIS FOR ONE TO BEGIN WITH. It would be intelligence agencies, elections oversight officials, etc and so forth. There is no basis for starting an investigation into mass voter fraud, which is why even Republicans haven't pursued it. Lawsuits are their method of foregoing an investigation and trying to find a judge friendly to their nonsense cause, but so far even Trump appointees have basically said, "fuck off."

Again, that's what someone who already made up their mind would count on, not what they can certainly astute.

No, those are just the facts. I'm not sure if you're expecting a military coup to bail him out at the last second or what, but it ain't happening.

 

[tabzer]

I didn't say ignore him, I said don't take him too seriously when he's whining like this. He's used to always getting way due to being born wealthy.

Yeah, being born wealthy is why everyone in the world is paying attention to him. You are being disingenious.

Those people also have biases and agendas, and their biases are particularly strong if they're willing to believe that millions of cases of voter fraud occurred despite evidence existing for only about ten of those cases.

Biases and agendas? So... skepticism of the "most transparent" election in modern history? There has already been doubts brewing since the Bush vs Kerry election. They were never settled either. Everyone wonders how electronic voting can be secure, especially when the US Government is leaking something every other day.

I literally opened this conversation by telling you that Republican elections experts gave this one the all clear. Objectively, Trump is full of shit. Objectively, this should not be surprising to you by now.

Yeah. An appeal to an authority that nobody already trusts. Thanks.

No, you still aren't understanding. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans would be the ones to carry out an investigation, IF THERE WERE ANY BASIS FOR ONE TO BEGIN WITH. It would be intelligence agencies, elections oversight officials, etc and so forth. There is no basis for starting an investigation into mass voter fraud, which is why even Republicans haven't done it. Lawsuits are their method of foregoing an investigation and trying to find a judge friendly to their nonsense cause, but so far even Trump appointees have basically said, "fuck off."

Well, in elections, it's usually the losing side that says that "it was rigged" and the winning side saying "no it wasn't". So far, both democrats and republicans have done it. At what point in time is the "transparency" of elections going to be revealed? When is a random nobody going to be able to see that the election was fair?

No, those are just the facts. I'm not sure if you're expecting a military coup to bail him out at the last second or what, but it ain't happening.

You can predict facts. Cool! AFAIK the military is already providing testimony in supporting evidence of a insecure election.

 

[Sicklyboy]

https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news...anded-by-trump-increases-bidens-margin-650492

Well, uh... that's awkward.

And hilarious!

The Trump campaign spent $3 million in donor money to increase Biden’s lead by 132 votes.

Works out to $22,727 per vote. https://t.co/SAoZ36uCDe

— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) November 27, 2020

Spending $3MM to help further secure the win for the other dude. What a guy.

 

[Xzi]

Yeah, being born wealthy is why everyone in the world is paying attention to him.

LMAO, well...a certain type of person lends weight to the words and actions of an individual simply because they're wealthy. In the US, we call them bootlickers. Those people are far from comprising* "everyone in the world," or Biden wouldn't have won by over ten million votes.

So... skepticism of the "most transparent" election in modern history? There has already been doubts brewing since the Bush vs Kerry election. They were never settled either. Everyone wonders how electronic voting can be secure, especially when the US Government is leaking something every other day.

You mean Bush v. Gore, which was extremely close and came down to a single state. The type of paper ballot used in the 2000 election has long since been replaced, and 2020 was nowhere near that close, either. Additionally, I'm also skeptical about electronic voting machines, but that's part of why this election was so secure: it was mostly conducted through paper, mail-in ballots.

Yeah. An appeal to an authority that nobody already trusts. Thanks.

Well, if Trump can't even trust his own party, maybe they rigged the election against him.

Well, in elections, it's usually the losing side that says that "it was rigged" and the winning side saying "no it wasn't".

Wrong, Trump did the same thing in 2016. He called the election rigged beforehand, and then won. Had he lost he would've continued to whine about it being rigged, as he's doing now.

You can predict facts.

I don't have to, Trump has already behaved in this manner since losing the election, so it's easy to predict he'll continue to behave this way.

 

[KingVamp]

Trump and the people who filed lawsuits over the election sure seem to be losing according to the leftist media. Leave it to the liberals to try to gloat over this situation when all the Conservatives want to know is if there was a fair election or not. I think that would be something both sides could agree upon.

If there was actually any evidence of widespread voter fraud, sure. Instead we got things such as, people claiming fraud before any evidence. Wanting some places to arbitrarily stop counting and other places to keep counting. Trump claiming victory, despite voting being nowhere near finished.

Court cases being thrown out even by the most right wing judges. With the only "evidence" left being conspiracy theories, yeah I think people have room to gloat.

 

[tabzer]

LMAO, well...a certain type of person lends weight to the words and actions of an individual simply because they're wealthy. Those people are far from compromising "everyone in the world," or Biden wouldn't have won by over ten million votes.

What? Say that again, but this time use English. Compromising "everyone in the world"? Do you mean comprising? I think you are confused. It appears you aren't even making a point.

You mean Bush v. Gore, which was extremely close and came down to a single state. The type of paper ballot used in the 2000 election has long since been replaced, and 2020 was nowhere near that close, either. Additionally, I'm also skeptical about electronic voting machines, but that's part of why this election was so secure: it was mostly conducted through paper, mail-in ballots.

Ah. You are right. It was Bush vs Gore. I remember Diebold machines being a source of contention, and later being proven to be hackable--making the inclusion of even more electronic voting machines to be such a dumbfounding outcome. As far as mail-in ballots are concerned, Trump said that signatures weren't being verified. What's your opinion?

Well, if Trump can't even trust his own party, maybe they rigged the election against him.

Trump never "trusted" his own party, from the beginning. Optics are that he played the party. Stop being disingenuous please.

Wrong, Trump did the same thing in 2016. He called the election rigged beforehand, and then won. Had he lost he would've continued to whine about it being rigged, as he's doing now.

I said "usually", as I was removing Trump from the equation to account for history as he is full of unprecedented actions.

I don't have to, Trump has already behaved in this manner since losing the election, so it's easy to predict he'll continue to behave this way.

You are predicting outcomes. That's what it is by definition. To say "I don't have to" is another point where you are being disingenuous.

 

[Xzi]

What? Say that again, but this time use English. Compromising "everyone in the world"? Do you mean comprising? I think you are confused. It appears you aren't even making a point.

Yeah you got me there, didn't even notice that mistake myself. Obviously you were able to get the meaning through context nonetheless.

As far as mail-in ballots are concerned, Trump said that signatures weren't being verified. What's your opinion?

Signatures are always verified, but it's an imprecise science anyway. People's signatures can change based on date, time, the weather, their mood, etc.

Trump never "trusted" his own party, from the beginning. Optics are that he played the party.

I dunno whose optics...the GOP nominated him. He governed very much like a typical neocon.

You are predicting outcomes.

The only outcome that mattered was the outcome of the election. His sphere of influence and options are next to nil now that he's lost. So how about you tell me: what "leverage" does going 1-38 in election court cases grant him, exactly? And particularly during a lame duck session?

 

[tabzer]

Yeah you got me there, didn't even notice that mistake myself. Obviously you were able to get the meaning through context nonetheless.

Okay. I really wasn't sure. Comprising makes the most sense, so we agree now. So, now, you would have me to believe that opposition isn't paying attention to him?

Signatures are always verified, but it's an imprecise science anyway. People's signatures can change based on date, time, the weather, their mood, etc.

Imprecise science I understand. I don't understand the vetting process of selecting ballot counters, state to state, and I have no way to know that signatures are being verified. Of course, it seems like it should be done, but how can we verify, *or even trust, that when photos of the witnesses show the witnesses being too far away?

I dunno whose optics...the GOP nominated him. He governed very much like a typical neocon.

Okay. You are calling Trump "typical". It was the media that got him elected, making him to appear like someone who could put pressure on the GOP instead of conforming to it.

The only outcome that mattered was the outcome of the election. His sphere of influence and options are next to nil now that he's lost. So how about you tell me: what "leverage" does going 1-38 in election court cases grant him, exactly? And particularly during a lame duck session?

But he didn't lose, and he seems to be exercising all of his options before the electorate college votes. There is a saying that it's not over until the fat lady sings. Maybe that's Trump in this case? So that brings me to another point. Would this end even if Biden assumes office? To me, America would look like it is becoming less transparent and more of a shell.

 

[Xzi]

So, now, you would have me to believe that opposition isn't paying attention to him?

Pretty much. Dems are focused on Biden's transition and short term policy goals for his administration, not worrying about Trump's latest tantrum.

Imprecise science I understand. I don't understand the vetting process of selecting ballot counters, state to state, and I have no way to know that signatures are being verified. Of course, it seems like it should be done, but how can we verify, *or even trust, that when photos of the witnesses show the witnesses being too far away?

It's mostly just volunteers for each side (and possibly some Independents), though they are of course under threat of the full force of the law if they're caught doing anything remotely suspect. Witnesses getting up and walking around may be doing so for a number of reasons: to check against other records, or check for irregularities in the latest batch of votes, for example.

Okay. You are calling Trump "typical". It was the media that got him elected, making him to appear like someone who could put pressure on the GOP instead of conforming to it.

I think Republican media actually disliked him more than Democratic media in 2016, but they didn't portray him any sort of way, they just gave him free air time with no commentary. It was a means by which to ignore Bernie Sanders' skyrocketing campaign. Regardless, as president he turned the GOP into one giant pyramid scheme for funneling money into his own pockets, it doesn't get much more neoconservative than that.

But he didn't lose, and he seems to be exercising all of his options before the electorate college votes.

He's exercising his last option in terms of states that aren't certified, which is PA, in a race where Biden piled up 306 EC votes. We don't need to wait on ceremony to know who won.

Would this end even if Biden assumes office? To me, America would look like it is becoming less transparent and more of a shell.

That was among Trump's objectives: to sew doubt in our democracy and democratic process. Thankfully it didn't seem to have worked very well, or at least not well enough to suppress the vote to the point of giving him a chance at re-election.

 

[omgcat]

Imagine wanting to take a vaccine that's 95% effective when not taking a vaccine is 99% effective...

sure you've got a 1% chance of dying from covid, but what about damage that doesn't kill you? we know that covid causes damage to your kidney's and testicles? what about the growing numbers of long haulers that survived covid but are fucked up for the foreseeable future?

The vaccine has a 95% chance of stopping ALL covid complications. I mean, i guess you're not using your testicles anyways so might as well put them at risk. Neuter yourself to own the libs!

 

[tabzer]

Pretty much. Dems are focused on Biden's transition and short term policy goals for his administration, not worrying about Trump's latest tantrum.

What I am seeing is a different point of view. Yes, the media seems to show as little about him as possible, and focusing on posturing Biden as the next President, but I still see two sides fighting over the rhetoric, and many people who do not know what's going to happen. As far as I can sincerely say, Trump is the most influential person in the world right now. The point that this came up was because you seemed to suggest that people only paid attention to him because he was rich, but he's president of the US, and that alone makes him the center of attention over here. The fact that he is so outrageous makes him interesting.

It's mostly just volunteers for each side (and possibly some Independents), though they are of course under threat of the full force of the law if they're caught doing anything remotely suspect. Witnesses getting up and walking around may be doing so for a number of reasons: to check against other records, or check for irregularities in the latest batch of votes, for example.

Has there ever been a case were a poll worker was confronted with the full force of the law for being caught doing something remotely suspect? I wasn't talking about witnesses getting up and walking around. I'm talking about when they forced to be 5-6 feet apart from the poll workers, due to "social distancing", but the poll workers are stationed directly next to each other.

I think Republican media actually disliked him more than Democratic media in 2016, but they didn't portray him any sort of way, they just gave him free air time with no commentary. It was a means by which to ignore Bernie Sanders' skyrocketing campaign. Regardless, as president he turned the GOP into one giant pyramid scheme for funneling money into his own pockets, it doesn't get much more neoconservative than that.

Everything I saw or heard of him were mainly from Democratic sources, and they made him appear like the GOP couldn't control him, that he was a wild card, which I think helped him cultivate his base. The more that the media said he had no chance, the more his base became motivated.

He's exercising his last option in terms of states that aren't certified, which is PA, in a race where Biden piled up 306 EC votes. We don't need to wait on ceremony to know who won.

Okay, I think you are underestimating. I personally need to see the finale before I am satisfied.

That was among Trump's objectives: to sew doubt in our democracy and democratic process. Thankfully it didn't seem to have worked very well, or at least not well enough to suppress the vote to the point of giving him a chance at re-election.

I think it's crazy to assume that America is becoming more transparent than ever through this election, unless you mean that ironically.

 

[smf]

Thankfully it didn't seem to have worked very well, or at least not well enough to suppress the vote to the point of giving him a chance at re-election.

It's gaining traction in PA where the state senator is trying to get the result overturned.

Even though their basis for doing so is a lie. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pa-mailin-votes-ballots/



"This is what you get when you have an army colonel in the state senate"

I gotta question whether that means army colonels are corrupt or just dumb?

If it's just PA then it's not enough. If some other dumb/corrupt republicans get on board then Trump could steal the election from the american people.

Surely someone should have the guts to correct him, in case he is just thick.

 

[Doran754]

It's gaining traction in PA where the state senator is trying to get the result overturned.

Even though their basis for doing so is a lie. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pa-mailin-votes-ballots/



"This is what you get when you have an army colonel in the state senate"

I gotta question whether that means army colonels are corrupt or just dumb?

If it's just PA then it's not enough. If some other dumb/corrupt republicans get on board then Trump could steal the election from the american people.

Surely someone should have the guts to correct him, in case he is just thick.

Not that im saying you're wrong, but please send me to a non partisan fact checker who isnt a DNC shrill, Snopes has to be the worst of the lot.

 

[smf]

Not that im saying you're wrong, but please send me to a non partisan fact checker who isnt a DNC shrill, Snopes has to be the worst of the lot.

https://www.snopes.com/2015/04/17/eye-of-the-beholder/

Are we Republicans or Democrats? Conservatives or liberals? Administration supporters or a secretly-funded tool of the opposition? According to our readership, we’re all those things — from what they tell us, we’ve performed the remarkable feat of being decidedly biased in every possible direction:

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...e-mail-ballots-werent-counted-pennsylvania-c/
https://lancasteronline.com/news/po...cle_4f2a853a-1fa1-11eb-aec2-3371757b7a34.html

It's kinda ironic there is a higher standard required of fact checkers than of the elected representatives.

 

[Xzi]

The point that this came up was because you seemed to suggest that people only paid attention to him because he was rich, but he's president of the US, and that alone makes him the center of attention over here. The fact that he is so outrageous makes him interesting.

The GOP would not have nominated and elected him if he wasn't rich. He basically spews the same conspiracy theories as crazy homeless people, and his base would all spit on him and keep walking if he were penniless.

Has there ever been a case were a poll worker was confronted with the full force of the law for being caught doing something remotely suspect?

I'm sure there has been, just like we get around ten cases of voter fraud per election. A couple of individuals mucking about is never of much consequence, though, and poll workers aren't really in a position to commit more wide-scale election fraud, either.

Everything I saw or heard of him were mainly from Democratic sources, and they made him appear like the GOP couldn't control him, that he was a wild card, which I think helped him cultivate his base. The more that the media said he had no chance, the more his base became motivated.

People disliked Hillary more than they disliked Trump, that's all 2016 came down to. They were both bad candidates.

Okay, I think you are underestimating.

Underestimating what? You still haven't given even the vaguest of clues what rabbit you think Trump could pull out of a hat at this stage in the game, when his administration has already allowed Biden's transition to begin.

I think it's crazy to assume that America is becoming more transparent than ever through this election, unless you mean that ironically.

It certainly didn't become any less transparent, everybody watched the same votes being counted in real time, and our intelligence agencies didn't throw up any red flags like they did in 2016.

 

[Doran754]

https://www.snopes.com/2015/04/17/eye-of-the-beholder/

Are we Republicans or Democrats? Conservatives or liberals? Administration supporters or a secretly-funded tool of the opposition? According to our readership, we’re all those things — from what they tell us, we’ve performed the remarkable feat of being decidedly biased in every possible direction:

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...e-mail-ballots-werent-counted-pennsylvania-c/
https://lancasteronline.com/news/po...cle_4f2a853a-1fa1-11eb-aec2-3371757b7a34.html

It's kinda ironic there is a higher standard required of fact checkers than of the elected representatives.

Are you being serious, a fake news shrill defending themselves is like Jack the Ripper fact checking if he's a murderer. Nevermind

 

[smf]

Are you being serious, a fake news shrill defending themselves is like Jack the Ripper fact checking if he's a murderer. Nevermind

If both sides are saying you are biased, then you aren't biased.

You seem more biased than them.