Georgia’s Raffensperger “repugnant” for the GOP?

1. 81

   Credence2posted 8 weeks ago

   https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/29/politics … nald-trump
   
   This is the man that would not “find” the 11K votes Donald Trump needed to take the state of Georgia in 2020. Why is the GOP after this man who did his job instead of submit to treachery and fraud by doing what Trump wanted? The man is a Republican, for Pete’s sake, why would he give any benefit to Democrats that was not warranted?
   
   Is this your Republican Party? This incident tells me a great deal about you Trumper types, in a captured orbit around your Trumpstone. You just suck up to Trump, honesty and integrity in doing the job for the people of the state is to be damned. Is this the kind of people that you are? The picture that i get from all this is not flattering at all, for any of you.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      GA Andersonposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      Two fair articles in a row, you're on a roll.
      
      But, you're also on a familiar path with your 'you people' finger-pointing. That's a roll you don't want to be on.
      
      Do your own visualization: hold up your hand with that single accusatory finger pointing at them. See the three that are pointing back at you?
      
      Coming from a Progressive, those are the fingers they'll see: the 'pregnant guy,' the female Cabinet Secretary that can't say what a woman is, and the Socialist mayor that wants to eat the rich of NYC, to turn it into The Hunger Games capital city. Is that the picture you want them to get from you?
      
      To the point of your article, as was mentioned, Raffensperger's numbers will say a lot about the Republican party. Especially if the plan to split the MAGA vote works. It would look really bad for Trump if Raffensperger survives to a run-off with the non-Trump guy.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

         The Response: Jackson replied, "No, I can't. Not in this context... I'm not a biologist". She explained that as a judge, her role is to address disputes based on legal arguments rather than providing definitions for broad, potentially controversial terms.
         
         Reactions: Critics argued this showed a failure to define a fundamental biological concept, while supporters and experts noted her response was legally and scientifically sound, as biology is complex and not a simple, singular definition.
         ———-
         So you still cannot discern between a pomegranate and hand Granade, GA?
         
         I am going to believe the scientists and experts over any professed rightwinger as they usually do represent a contradiction in terms.
         
         These arguments touch into the gender bender issues and while for conservatives it is sooo controversial, it touches on transgender issues and still remain a matter of opinion. We all know that we do not agree on this. But cheating as a way of doing acceptable business represent THEM and their fearless leader to a T, and is far more serious.
         
         What you are excusing are out and out liars and cheats. Yes, i point each and every digit of my hand toward THEM.  So, it is ok to cheat as long as your guy wins? Raffensperger was supposed to lie and cheat and his punishment is banishment from the GOP party? What else are THEY more than willing to lie and cheat about? 
         
         You can adjust the pilot on your gaslighting operation because your example is not comparable, not in the least.
         
         Yeah, as for the politics, it already looks bad, Trump is unable to get a win in his own neighborhood, can he be expected to do much better outside of it?
         
         You can remember that i said this if Trump and the GOP loses on the midterms, what would he do?
         
         1. Resign, or better yet, abdicate, knowing that his agenda is finished.
         2. He could double down as a tyrant clearly breaking the law, doing what he wants, regardless.
         3. Or he could whine to the Supreme Court to protect his inroads and grip on power, under the divine rights of Kings.
         
         Which would you choose?

         replyreport
         1. 86

            GA Andersonposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            I've never had pomogranite, so I don't know if I'm better off with the fruit or the grenade.
            
            But I can see and hear. The question you omitted was simple: 'Can you offer a definition for the word woman?'
            
            I heard them ask. I watched her fidget. Then I heard her answer.
            
            And you say I just don't understand. I don't have enough schoolin' to understand the complexities and legal challenges attached to any definition, and she's got to stay open-minded, and if I just listen to your perspective, the scientists and experts will explain why what I just heard isn't silly as hell.
            
            Sound about right to you? And you stand proudly with that explanation?
            
            Nope, the Dundee test is 'expert' enough for me. What about you? Can you make the call based on the Dundee test?
            
            As for the rest ... I'm lost. I thought I was generally agreeing with the gist of the article and the reason you liked it so much. Help me out. Who was I defending, and what part of what issue was I "gaslighting" about?
            
            As a side note, if you're pointing each and every digit, isn't that waving? You know, like, Hi, or yoohoo, over here? Otherwise, it's confusing as hell, pointing every digit. It'd be like that Richard Pryor joke about cross-eyed Jr. He'd say, "Pick that up", and 4 or 5 folks bend over, cause nobody knows where he was looking.
            
            That would be you if you're pointing with every digit (and you're not waving hi). Nobody'd know which direction to look.
            
            GA

            replyreport
   2. 85

      Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Just my view.
      
      I think you’re oversimplifying what happened in Georgia and turning it into a character attack instead of a discussion about facts.
      
      The “find 11,780 votes” quote from Donald Trump is constantly presented as if he was asking someone to fabricate votes. But if you read the full call with Brad Raffensperger, Trump was arguing that he believed there were already enough illegal or miscounted votes to change the outcome, and he was asking Raffensperger to investigate and account for them. That’s very different from asking someone to commit fraud.
      
      There actually were issues found during the process. For example, Georgia conducted a full hand recount, audits, and ongoing reviews. While they didn’t overturn the result, there were discrepancies identified, like ballot scanning issues in some counties and small batches of previously uncounted ballots that were later added. Again, not enough to change the outcome, but it undercuts the idea that everything was perfectly clean with zero errors.
      
      The frustration from many Republicans isn’t simply that Raffensperger “did his job,” but that they feel concerns were dismissed too quickly or not investigated as thoroughly as they should have been. You can disagree with that position, but it’s not automatically “treachery” or “fraud” to question an election, Democrats did the same in 2000 and 2016.
      
      The phone call was serious enough to trigger criminal charges, but the case ended without a conviction and is now over. So claiming it proves guilt, or that it meant nothing, is an oversimplification.
      
      The personal attack, “you Trumper types,” “no honesty or integrity, don’t really move the conversation forward. People can support Trump and still care about election integrity, just like people can oppose him and still believe in fair elections. Reducing it to blind loyalty vs. virtue doesn’t reflect reality.
      
      If we’re going to have a serious conversation about this, it should be about what actually happened, not assumptions about each other’s character.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

         I have been busy lately but was meaning to get back with you on this…
         
         “Trump believed”? But he never did prove it, did he?
         
         Mr. Raffensperger did investigate and the vote as counted held, who was Trump to question the outcome?
         
         So, evidence supports that any discrepancy could not and did not change the outcome, so why do Republicans hold Mr. Raffensperger in such disdain?
         
         My problem is the GOP should not be castigating a man for doing his job according to the oath he took to do so. All this regardless of the fact that the case is over.
         
         The conversation speaks of dishonesty and an impression from Republicans in Georgia that Raffensperger should have lied to give Trump the votes that he did not earn. You can call it what you want, but a lack of integrity comes to my mind as a result. If the party was doing that in Georgia, why not in your neighborhood?
         
         Frankly, I don’t care what Trump suspects only what he can prove, it is ridiculous to expect him to really be concerned about a fair process since he only wins when it is anything but…. At least in Georgia in 2020,

         replyreport
         1. 85

            Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            In my honest view, I believe Trump was pointing to instances of fraud, but his emotions got the better of him.   As I mentioned, there was some fraud, but it was nowhere near enough to change the election results. Raffensperger was speaking the facts as he knew them and carried out his duties strictly according to the law. He did his job well.

            replyreport
2. 86

   Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks ago

   Cred, GA...
   
   Saw that my last payment was sent just the other day...
   
   Good luck, wish you health and happiness, its been a great decade+ of debating with you two gentlemen.
   
   To everyone else as well.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Quite an experience, hopefully we can find alternate forums to continue the debates
      
      All the best to you

      replyreport