Biden hasn't won and will not!

Jump to Last Post 1-50 of 70 discussions (767 posts)
  1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
    Kenna McHughposted 11 months ago

    Have you noticed that Trump supporters are not rioting? Why is that?
    From a friend: 
    Copied and pasted - info from some of the lawyers from my group:

    Ok in a nutshell. This is going to the Supreme Court. Where they will rule that the election is invalid due to fraud or mistakes on a country wide scale.  It will go one of two ways, either they will rule that all the unconstitutional
    mail in ballots will be removed and the states ordered to recount without them  or they will simply rule the election is invalid due to mass voter fraud and at that point it will be sent to the congress and senate for a vote. This is where it gets good. The house/congress votes on who the President will be. It has nothing to do with what party that has power. Every State gets one vote and 30 States are held by Republicans.and 19 by Democrats. They have to vote down party lines, they have no choice due to the 12th Amendment of the Constitution and the Senate votes for the Vice President where a similar even will take place.  This is The law.  This is why the Democrats are so mad at Nancy Pelosi. This will all happen in January. The only way President Trump won’t be President is if he concedes the election and that will never happen   So stop watching the fake news and don’t let your heart be troubled and live your life knowing this will all work out. President Trump will remain President   I have researched all of this and it is Fact!
    Another fun fact, they call Gore the President Elect for 30 days in 2000 until the courts ruled against him and declared Bush the winner. And two people that were part of that decision was none other that new Supreme Court Justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Why do you think the Democrats tried so hard to keep them from being confirmed.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

      This is very interesting due to President Trump predicted some time ago due to mail-in ballots the election would end up in the Supreme Court. And he certainly wanted Barrett on the court before the election. However,  he will need to have some compelling evidence to prove fraud.

      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKBN2781FS

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKXMype … GfO9Vxo3l4

    2. abwilliams profile image64
      abwilliamsposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Thanks for sharing this Kenna! I have continued about my business, content that all of this will work out as it should, secure in my faith in God and secure in our Constitution, laid out so brilliantly, all those years ago. God Bless America!

    3. crankalicious profile image94
      crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      As an American, you should probably learn how the Supreme Court works. The original post is so full of errors, it's practically a joke. Among the errors, the issue of concession. Whether Trump concedes or not is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the outcome. He doesn't have to concede.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        This article gives a good look at what could happen in different scenarios of the subject. I would think at this point we need to wait and see how the lawsuits Trump has filed go anywhere.  They certainly may not. However, this thread is interesting, and it got me thinking and doing a bit of research.

        https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKBN2781FS

      2. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Setting aside the assumptions of how SCOTUS will vote (which are at this time completely without basis), what is wrong with the rest of it? 

        What little I know of the process is that the House would choose a president, if the election was declared void, and with one vote per state.  And the Senate will choose a VP.  Is that wrong (I have not exhaustively researched it)?

        1. crankalicious profile image94
          crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          The strangest thing about this right now in Georgia is that it's all Republicans arguing with each other. The two Senators are calling for the Republican Sec. of State to resign and he, along with other Republicans, are saying there's no evidence of fraud. So, you have some Republicans saying there's fraud and more Republicans saying show me the fraud.

          1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
            Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            If they want to argue, let them.

        2. profile image0
          Marisa Writesposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          No, it's not wrong. However it's extremely unlikely that the whole election will be declared void.  It would have to be demonstrated that voter fraud was prevalent across all states, and so large that it affected the outcome.

          It will never get that far.  The lawsuits need to go through the individual states first.  If voter fraud is proved in those states, then there will be recounts in those states and Trump will be declared the winner, and there will be no need to take it any further.

      3. Kenna McHugh profile image89
        Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        This will be an interesting process for sure. However, to be a lawyer and argue this and that for hundreds of dollars an hour. Here we do it for less.

      4. savvydating profile image90
        savvydatingposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Kenna quoted information from the lawyers in her group. American lawyers generally know how the supreme court works, since it is their job to know.

        Are you a Constitutional lawyer, Credence?

        1. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

          No, but I don't have to be to require proof from more than one opinionated source, right?

          Irrefutable Proof, is that not clear enough? So, someone needs to obtain it or this circus performance goes nowhere.

          1. savvydating profile image90
            savvydatingposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Apparently, there are a plethora of sources in the form of affiants. Most citizens are highly reluctant to perjure themselves.

            So, when the legal dust settles, time will tell.

            1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
              Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Exactly

    4. TheShadowSpecter profile image85
      TheShadowSpecterposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Kenna?  I also did the extensive research on how the Constitution addresses situations of this nature, and I can frankly say that you obviously did your homework.  Therefore, I must commend you for driving the extra mile to research how this entire process works.  That is, according to the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court of the United States ("SCOTUS") does have the power to throw out the entire election and remand the matter to the U.S. House of Representatives for a decision, if the SCOTUS determines that voter fraud caused irreparable harm to the results of the election.  The U.S. House of Representatives would then initiate what is called an anointment process that decides our next president.  However, one very interesting piece of information I found out was that if this matter ultimately goes to the U.S. House of Representatives as you describe and no decision is reached before Inauguration Day, then the Speaker of the House would be temporarily inaugurated to serve as our acting president on January 20, 2021 until this matter was resolved.  Therefore, it can be no mystery why there are a group of House delegates in the Democratic party who are working ferociously to oust Nancy Pelosi from the position of Speaker of the House.  They apparently don't want a loony tune like her running the nation while a decision is being made on who should be our next president.  I'm a moderate Independent, and I don't like her.  The Republicans view her to be a crook.  She doesn't seem very popular these days.  Anyhow, it should be interesting to find out what happens.

      1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
        Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Shadow, Thank you. I agree. Pelosi is history and needs to be removed.

    5. peterstreep profile image80
      peterstreepposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      I started to respond to this, but frankly it's to simplistic to respond to and is close to the stupidity of people not believing there was never a moon landing. or People believing Hillary Clinton was running a paedophile network.
      Biden won with more then 6 million votes. That's the biggest popular vote ever if I am correct. Do you really believe there was a vote  fraud on such a big scale?
      The head of the Cyber Security said the election was fair. He was fired because of it by Trump. - Think about that one for a minute. Shooting the messenger doesn't change the message.

      1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
        Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        More and more evidence is surfacing. Let's see what happens. It takes a lot to confront evil. The American people deserve to know the truth.

      2. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Does it matter what I, or Kenna, believe as to how much fraud there was?

        Does it make sense to you that a claim of massive fraud should be ignored because the winners claimed there wasn't any, or should the claim be looked into by the courts?  Should we simply take the unsupported and untested word of the winning side that they did nothing wrong?

        Should the years long investigation into collusion with Russia never have happened because the winners said they did nothing wrong and did not collude with Russia?

        1. abwilliams profile image64
          abwilliamsposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Sorry Wilderness, I realize that your questions are directed at Peter, but if I may...because Peter will not say it -

          Yes, we are expected to accept massive fraud, pretend that it never happened, because the so-called winning side says so.

          No, the so-called collusion with Russia narrative needed to happen, because Donald Trump upset the Establishment's apple cart. Can't have that EVER happen again. Soooo...it had to happen and although, that and everything else they managed to pull out of their collective hats didn't work, they always had Plan Q: Massive Fraud, waiting in the wings.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            You got the point.

            1. abwilliams profile image64
              abwilliamsposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              This is madness.

        2. peterstreep profile image80
          peterstreepposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          You support a claim of massive fraud without any evidence. Its not only the winners that say there wasn’t any, there are lots of Republicans too who said there weren’t any. Or do you call Bush a traitor because he congratulated Biden?

          1. crankalicious profile image94
            crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Peter, the whole belief system of the religious Right is steeped in hocus pocus. They have faith not fact. Faith is better than fact. They have faith in Trump, so they believe whatever he says. Evidence is not necessary in any intellectual endeavor. Like has been pointed out in this forum, it's a cult. Cultists are often religious because they have life experience that suggests they should just believe and if they find a charismatic leader, they believe him without question.

        3. crankalicious profile image94
          crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Should we accept the unsupported, untested and unproven word of the losing side about massive fraud?

          It's one thing to claim massive fraud and present evidence. It's another to claim massive fraud and then ask people to produce the massive fraud. Then it's quite another to claim massive fraud while presenting an entirely different picture in court while simultaneously admitting that there was no massive fraud. Then it's an entirely different thing to try to directly influence state legislators and electors to overturn the will of the people through illegal means.

          Anyone who claims to love America, be American, love Democracy or be a patriot should denounce what is going on.

          Let me ask, when will Trump supporters be satisfied? There have already been a few dozen cases that have been tossed because of lack of evidence. How can you accept the President claiming massive fraud but presenting nothing of the kind in court? When will you realize he's lying?

          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            I have concluded they know he is lying about this, just like they know he lies all the time, and they don't care.  He is the guy who is going to save America for them.

            If Trump manages to stay in office by lying or cheating, that's fine with them.

    6. Kenna McHugh profile image89
      Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Here's some information during a press conference today. Let's see what the media does with it tomorrow. https://brigittegabriel.com/news/full-p … udy-sidney

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        If even half of what was said is true this country is in massive trouble.

        1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
          Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Yes. The country is in trouble.

  2. Rupert Taylor profile image96
    Rupert Taylorposted 11 months ago

    Oh Kenna. You couldn't let me have 48 hours before having to resort to the gin bottle for solace?

    1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
      Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Exactly, it's crazy!

  3. FatFreddysCat profile image93
    FatFreddysCatposted 11 months ago

    Gonna check back on this thread on Jan. 20, 2021 and see how well (or not) it has aged.

    1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
      Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      What a great idea! I can't wait until this is all over and done with. Hindsight is always the most revealing.

      1. FatFreddysCat profile image93
        FatFreddysCatposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Aaaaaaand it's aged like milk, just as I suspected. big_smile

        1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
          Kenna McHughposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          We still need to depend on ourselves, not corn and gladiators to make our lives happy.

          1. Valeant profile image87
            Valeantposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Whoa, on deglorifying corn!  My farmer's roots take issue.

            1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
              Kenna McHughposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Take it as you may! smile

              1. Miebakagh57 profile image60
                Miebakagh57posted 9 months agoin reply to this

                It's interesting.

                1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
                  Kenna McHughposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes. It is. We've got a lot of work to do.

    2. profile image0
      Marisa Writesposted 11 months ago

      This is a good example of how crazy theories, which once wouldn't have gotten much attention, can be spread far and wide by the internet.

      Before any of that can happen, voter fraud allegations will have to be considered by each state legislature.

      Trump's team are investigating ONLY in the states where he lost, so the only evidence provided will relate to those states. As that is only 15 or 16 states, even if they find compelling evidence in every state (which I doubt), that won't be enough to say that fraud was committed in the majority of the country.

      The theory is an unnecessary diversion anyway.  If fraud is found in one or more crucial states, that could change the result on its own.

      I have to say, I find it odd that if the Democrats were going to commit such a huge fraud, they ignored the Senate.  To put such a massive effort in and then allow the Senate to go to the Republicans doesn't make any sense.

      (and by the way, if anyone is suggesting that those two judges would rule in the Republicans favour even if the evidence isn't there, that's called perversion of justice).

      1. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Thank you, Trump and his henchmen are being duplicitous about all of this and they shall not prevail.

      2. crankalicious profile image94
        crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Well, this fraud was carried out very poorly. The Dems should have made sure to get rid of Mitch.

        1. Kayode Doyak profile image59
          Kayode Doyakposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          That comment shows a serious lack of thinking, typical of you.

          Fraud is easy to apply in swing states where the race is close. When you have a candidate in a red state who you know will get over 60% of the vote it is almost impossible to create enough votes to swing that contest. Why even try?

        2. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Do you think they would have dared to try any funny business in Kentucky? As a rule for decades, they have been a red state. Although they did vote for Bill Clinton and I think Carter. Plus the population is small, I would think any fraud would stick out and be easily noted.

          I am looking forward to seeing if there is any plausible factual fraud. I am pleased to see Trump is bringing lawsuits where he claims there were various forms of fraud. The courts will have a look, and now it's a wait and see.

          1. crankalicious profile image94
            crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            You should go check out what the lawsuits have been about. They haven't been about fraud and they've all been tossed out. The lawsuits have been about GOP representatives not being able to closely examine the counting process. Those accusations have no proof, so they lawsuits were dismissed.

            The only lawsuit that might have merit is in Pennsylvania, where they allowed votes to be accepted until Nov. 6 if they were postmarked. Unfortunately, these votes have not been included in the overall count and have been segregated and only amount to a few thousand.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              I will admit I have not checked out any of the lawsuits. If any of them make it to the Supreme Court I will jump on it. But for now, I just don't have the will to even try to weed through them. 

              I can't even guess where all this will end.  I would think in every election some people try to pull off the fraud. I would think not enough to change the outcome. Although one never knows, we will have to wait a few days to see if any of these lawsuits produce the results Trump is looking for.

              1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
                Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                I am with you. I don't have time to follow every aspect, but it would be a blessing to see this mess cleaned up.

    3. Kayode Doyak profile image59
      Kayode Doyakposted 11 months ago

      “Trump's team are investigating ONLY in the states where he lost”

      NOT TRUE, Did you see this?
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKXMypeXnAU

      1. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this
        1. Kayode Doyak profile image59
          Kayode Doyakposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Deleted

          1. crankalicious profile image94
            crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Did you know the earth is flat?

            https://www.tfes.org

            1. Kayode Doyak profile image59
              Kayode Doyakposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Hmmmm, what are you smoking?

              1. crankalicious profile image94
                crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Did you check out the site? It says the earth is flat. I have a friend in Arizona who says it's flat too. He says he walks out the door and looks at the horizon and it's flat.

    4. Perspycacious profile image65
      Perspycaciousposted 11 months ago

      Early acceptance speeches of goodwill, and encouraged celebrations is an effort to overwhelm public sentiment and disgrace the search for truth and its eventual outcome.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        I must agree, I think the President deserved the respect the law offers him. He is doing the right thing. I for one want corruption to end, it will live on in the dark. Trump is doing the right thing. I am not willing to turn the other way in such an important election or for that matter any election.

        The time has passed for any further Democratic cheap ploys. Half the country was heard, and will not go back to this form of Government.

        1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
          Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          I agree. Let's have an honest election where each legal vote is counted.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Thank you... It's the only fair thing at this point.

          2. crankalicious profile image94
            crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Where were there illegal votes? Where is your evidence of this?

        2. profile image0
          Marisa Writesposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          He is doing the right thing in bringing law suits if he feels the voting was fraudulent.  I have no argument with that.

          But it is the COURTS which have to make the decisions.   Why can he not behave in a dignified manner and wait quietly while those decisions are made? 

          He's tweeting, holding press conferences and shortly, more rallies, designed to whip up outrage - none of which will make any difference to the outcome. So what is the point? 

          Unless he's hoping that all the fuss will influence the judges to make a judgment in his favor whether the evidence is there or not...

          I certainly trust that the American justice system is above that kind of thing.

          1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
            Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Marisa, There are many ways to look at this situation. I don't see it this way. I see the media jumping the gun, saying Biden won. Biden saying he won. In fact, the election is not over. At least Trump supporters are not violent, rioting, or breaking the law. There is nothing wrong with rallying. The media are not allowing the Trump campaign to get their message out. They haven't allowed him for a long time. He uses social media to do so.

          2. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            I fully see your point. In regards to how Trump is responding, we should have all learned one thing about Trump --- He is a fighter, he comes out with transparency. It very much appears he is going to make every attempt to point out any form of voter fraud and is taking no prisoners.

            And I do think he is making tons of noise and purposely putting a huge burning spotlight on the courts, perhaps thinking he will be heard and rulings will be fair. I think he wants to bring this the entire case to the Supreme Court. I would think he wants to make the Constitution work in his favor. And I do believe our justice system is above ruling in his favor just because he caused a stir.

            It will be interesting to watch where this all goes.

    5. eugbug profile image97
      eugbugposted 11 months ago

      What's worrying is the man has until January to plot his next move. Let's hope he doesn't do anything dangerous.

    6. Marie Flint profile image81
      Marie Flintposted 11 months ago

      May God's will be done.

    7. Rupert Taylor profile image96
      Rupert Taylorposted 11 months ago

      I recognize that it might be futile to deal with facts, but ...

      "At least Trump supporters are not violent, rioting, or breaking the law." Kenosha, Wisconsin?

      "The media are not allowing the Trump campaign to get their message out. They haven't allowed him for a long time. He uses social media to do so." Twitter has disabled several Trump tweets on the grounds they are spreading false information. Even sycophantic Fox News cut away from a press secretary briefing for the same reason.

      I have just watched extensive mainstream media coverage of Trump's election fraud allegations. Admittedly, they have interviewed constitutional law professors, who probably know what they are talking about, rather than Clyde down at the gas station.

      1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
        Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        You can't argue with sworn affidavits, social media suppressing information before and after the election.

        1. crankalicious profile image94
          crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          What exactly are you talking about? Sworn affidavits?

          Many in the media have decided they will not be a party to spreading lies. If they air completely falsehoods that aren't backed up with evidence, then they can basically air anything. I could accuse you publicly of being a pedophile with nothing to back that up. It's slander, right? Yet we have QAnon saying precisely that about every Democrat. We're all pedophiles. The media generally doesn't air that kind of falsehood.

          How is what the Trump administration doing any different? If they have evidence, they must present it. Even Fox News has tired of it, apparently.

          Bottom line, they have no evidence of voter fraud. They're actively trying to find it while simultaneously saying it happened.

          You clearly believe there was voter fraud. What do you base that belief on? I think you believe it because Trump says it and that's all. He says it and you believe it.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Michigan lawsuit was filed on Nov 9 and has cited six sworn affidavits, and  131 affidavits, or signed legal statements under oath, in Michigan as part of their investigation into alleged election irregularities.

            https://www.freep.com/story/news/politi … 218612002/

            I have only been following Michigan because it's where I live.

            Did you feel it fair what the media reported the Russian collusion story for two years without any form of evidence?  It went on for years...

            1. crankalicious profile image94
              crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              The Russian collusion story had a lot of evidence, you just keep repeating the right-wing talking points that there wasn't, which is factually not true.

              https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/08 … usion.html

              Here are two things that happen that are in the bipartisan report that fit the definition of collusion:

              1. Trump campaign officials met with Russian intelligence officers who were offering Putin's help with their campaign.
              2. The Russians hacked the DNC's emails and released them for the benefit of the Trump campaign.

              These are facts. Please stop repeating the lie that there was no evidence. There was a lot of evidence.

              Here is a link to the bipartisan report:

              https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sit … olume5.pdf

            2. crankalicious profile image94
              crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              And from your link, maybe this is why these cases keep getting thrown out:

              Several of the affidavits include hearsay, including incidents in which those who signed the affidavits say they were told certain things but do not identify the source of the statements. Some of the allegations — such as the "late" arrival of ballots at the TCF Center — are not in themselves indicative of wrongdoing, since ballots would be lawfully counted as long as they arrived at a clerk's office, satellite office or election drop box by 8 p.m. on Election Day, regardless of when they arrived at TCF in downtown Detroit.

              Hearsay does not prove anything and neither does the "late" arrival of ballots. If that's all that's there, a judge will toss that out. It's not evidence.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Apparently hearsay does go a long way, Trump was impeached on hearsay, second-hand info.

                1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
                  Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  There is a lot of hearsay information.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                    Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Yes, that was all that Muller went on as well as those that conducted the phony impeachment proceedings.

                2. crankalicious profile image94
                  crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Trump was not impeached on hearsay. He was impeached for attempting to extort information from a foreign government in exchange for damaging information on Biden. His offer was on tape. That's not hearsay. You may dispute what Trump was doing, but it's not hearsay.

                  And you keep repeating the same lie. There was a lot of evidence in the Russia investigation, but you keep saying it was a lie. I've provided links and the bi-partisan report, put out by a Republican-let committee. It's proof of the Trump campaign's ties to Russia.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Odd - as I recall he never asked for information.  He asked for an investigation into criminal activity - an investigation that would then provide punishment as required.

                  2. Sharlee01 profile image84
                    Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Not willing to argue these points.  It would seem unintelligent of me to argue facts that are easily proven. I consider firsthand information to be factual, like the Bobulinski firsthand accounts as well as physical evidence. I have moved on, we now have an investigation that provides good solid evidence on Hunter and Joe.

                    1. crankalicious profile image94
                      crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      That's because it's not an argument. I've presented factual information for you and you are denying it's factual.

          2. Kenna McHugh profile image89
            Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Thank you, Sharlee!

    8. Kathleen Cochran profile image81
      Kathleen Cochranposted 11 months ago

      Claims have to be authenticated by lower courts and so far nobody can stop laughing long enough to consider them.

    9. Flower Child Fe profile image65
      Flower Child Feposted 11 months ago

      I just think all of this is super sad and has literally brought me to tears because of everything that's happened and is happening it just makes Americans look like ignorant, selfish, undisciplined, untrustworthy, cold-hearted, violent extremist people and all of us aren't like that. I am now afraid of caucasian people, the police and Republicans. I've never seen so much evil come from one place (The White House). How far will Republicans go with this charade just because someone is a sore loser. How does a group of grown 60+ year olds allow one 74 year old man to bully "All" of them? And, how does thousands of people follow this man like a cult. You've trusted your doctor and your beliefs all of your life, even raised your kids with those beliefs, religion and spirituality and healthcare check-ups. Now suddenly you no longer trust doctors and scientist, and your spirituality no longer maters, why?

      How long have you had your doctor?

      Do you trust your doctor and believe that he/she has your best interest at heart? Why?

      Do you trust and take the medications that your doctor prescribes for you? Why?

      Do you wear a seatbelt in a car whether your the driver or the passenger? Why?

      Do you wait for the light to turn green before crossing the street? Why?

      Do you hold your breath underwater? Why?

      So by now, if you've answered the above questions you should know where this is leading to. How do people allow one business / reality TV man to come into their arena and destroy the entire institutions reputation? Remember, these are all career politicians who were bullied into abandoning their own morals, values and beliefs, or, is this just who Republicans really are?

      How weak do you have to be to go against your religion, your faith, as religion does not allow for dishonesty and deceit at least not the religion I'm familiar with. Not in those ten commandments. And you would throw your grandkids future away for a man who cant even manage his own finances and who do you think paying his four million dollar debt? Possibly your taxpayer money if he stays in office.

      Most of the Trump supporters I see on TV look like they benefit in some sort of way from the Afordable Care Act. Just an observance.

      Common sense would not allow one to believe that this virus is a hoax. And if you say it's a hoax then please tell me what all of these people died from and why so many more are hospitalized currently.

      Common sense would allow you to see that hospitals are overwhelmed,

      Common sense would allow you to see that positive cases are growing tremendously.

      Common sense would allow you to see and hear the doctors and nurses breaking down on video due to the situations that they have to deal with every day at work trying to save lives.

      Common sense would allow you to see that Morgues have started running out of space to store the deceased.

      Common sense and empathy would allow you to hear the Survivors telling their stories of how their lives have changed due to the ongoing, lingering symptoms and side effects of the virus even though they've "beat" the virus.

      Common sense would not allow you to go to a rally, unmasked, during a pandemic.

      Americans need to look in the mirror and do some real soul searching and ask God for forgiveness for the hatred in their hearts bacause you absolutely cannot be a real christian if you harbor hate within you. Remember That.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        I appreciate your view. However, not sure why you are under the impression that the majority of American's have not followed the suggested mitigations.  I feel the majority have, Democrat, Republican or however... I live in Michigan we had very strict mif=digations and still do, infect this fact has been reported widely. Our Governor had her powers removed by the court due to her draconian mitigations,  I can factually say I did not witness anyone breaking the mitigations. We have some of the worse stats in the United States. So I get tired of hearing the "Just wear the mask"...   And yes rallies, as well as BLM protests, were supper spreaders. Note not just rallies but protest. 

        And in regard to your Dr. Senario. I do trust my doctor but I trust myself to seek out his care... I do not need a president or anyone to tell me the benefits of a mask. I wear a mask because I have determined it is a wise thing to do.  It would seem many think the President should have been an example.  I need no pide pipper.  I depend on my own common sense to rule my decisions. Don't buy in any form of "leader"
        midset or groupthink. 

        And no morgues are not being overrun. We do have an increase in infections but a decrease in death tolls.

        1. profile image0
          PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Portable morgues have been brought into both El Paso and Amarillo as morgues are overflowing. There could be otheres, these are just the ones I have already read about.

          1. IslandBites profile image90
            IslandBitesposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Yup.

            At least 1,707 new Covid-19 deaths were reported Tuesday, according to data from Johns Hopkins University. That's the highest daily death toll since May 14.

            And it's only going to get worse, said Dr. Jonathan Reiner, a professor at George Washington University School of Medicine.

            "The horrible death count that we saw yesterday in the United States ... reflects the number of people who were being infected three weeks ago -- two to three weeks ago, because that's the lag," Reiner said Wednesday.

            "On average, two to three weeks ago, we were seeing 70,000 to 80,000 (new) cases per day. Yesterday, there were about 155,000 (new) cases. So if you're alarmed at the 1,700 deaths today, two to three weeks from now, we're going to see 3,000 deaths a day."

            1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
              Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              That is so unfortunate and sad. I hope his prediction is wrong.

          2. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Oh, how sad...

      2. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        I feel your pain and have been asking the same or similar questions ever since the socuopathic, narcissist bully became a candidate for president. There is only one explanation for why people would continue to defend and support such a man, but it does no good to state it openly to the cult members because they are blind to it and only get more enraged when the glaringly obvious is openly stated.

        All we can do is work hard to defeat  their sorry asses. Keep your eye on the ball and be part of the solution. We got rid of Trump. Georgia Senate races next, then play the long game and rid ourselves of the disgusting enablers starting with Mitch and Lind.say

        1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
          Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          The point is to look and observe for yourself. If you are smart enough and willing enough, separate the false from the truth for real, not preconceived ideas from the mass media or vested interests.

          1. abwilliams profile image64
            abwilliamsposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Amen Kenna, well stated.

          2. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Sure. The problem arises when the average Josephone thinks she's  so smart but believes the wacko over the verified exoert because her gut tells her so.

          3. profile image0
            Marisa Writesposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            The question is, how do you decide which source of information to trust?  I see people rejecting the mainstream media because they believe it's all controlled by vested interests. But how do they find a media outlet that is NOT controlled by vested interests? 

            Just because a media outlet claims to be "independent" does NOT mean that it is. And where do these small media outlets get their information, since they don't have a big staff of journalists to do the research? 

            Just because a small media outlet gathers a large following, or a theory gathers a lot of support, does not mean they are accurate or true. Just look at the story of Chicken Little.  Now we have the internet, Chicken Little would've collected thousands if not millions of followers before everyone realised the sky wasn't falling after all.

            1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
              Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Newsmax I hear is pretty good.

              1. profile image0
                PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Where did you hear that?

                1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
                  Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Several sources to whom I trust.

                  1. profile image0
                    PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    I heard that Newsmax has offered Trump a job. True?

                    1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
                      Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      Where did you hear that?

              2. profile image0
                Marisa Writesposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                That's my point. You've heard that Newsmax is pretty good, just like somebody heard the sky was falling in. 

                Newsmax is owned by Christopher Ruddy, a close friend of Donald Trump and a long-time right-wing Republican.  . 

                If you feel the mainstream media are too left-wing and baised towards the Democrats, the solution is not to find a right-wing biased media outlet instead.  If you do that, you are still only hearing one side of the story.

                That's like being a jury in a courtroom and only hearing one side of the evidence.  Would you make a decision on the case on that basis?  No.

                If you want to form informed, intelligent decisions, you need to study BOTH sides of the argument, before you make up your mind.

                1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
                  Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  I agree. You need to study the issues and sort through the falsehoods and truths. Honestly, discover for yourself what is true for you is true for you.

    10. MrNock profile image71
      MrNockposted 11 months ago

      This is heartwarming indeed. Whatever affects the US affects the whole world. A Biden in the White House will spell doom to the whole democratic world.

      1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
        Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Mr Nock, I agree.

      2. TheShadowSpecter profile image85
        TheShadowSpecterposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        I agree.

    11. Rupert Taylor profile image96
      Rupert Taylorposted 11 months ago

      Why is this posted in this forum? Shouldn't it be in the topical forums where all the other nonsense is on display?

      This space is supposed to be about writers helping other writers, not giving life to conspiracy theories.

      1. AliciaC profile image96
        AliciaCposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        I agree with your basic ideas, but the post is in the topical forum. smile

    12. Rupert Taylor profile image96
      Rupert Taylorposted 11 months ago

      Newsmax does not even pretend to offer an objective rendering of the news. It is owned by libertarian Christopher Ruddy and tries to position itself as a competitor to “fair and balanced” (tee hee) Fox News. It has scooped up Fox rejects such as Bill O’Reilly (fired for sexual indiscretions) and Mark Halperin (also fired over allegations of sexual misconduct).

      On November 10, 2020, The Guardian (I know, horribly leftist, nay, communist British rag, that has won numerous awards for its quality journalism – obviously a rigged competition) reported thusly: “In a video posted on Facebook on 7 November and viewed more than 16.5m times since, NewsMax host and former Trump administration official Carl Higbie spends three minutes spewing a laundry list of false and debunked claims casting doubt on the outcome of the presidential election.”

      The newspaper goes on to describe Higbie as having “an extensive track record of racist, homophobic and bigoted remarks.”

      If you want to believe the rubbish that Newsmax trades in that's your business and you are entitled to do so, but please don't try to pass it off as a reliable source.

      1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
        Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Of course, you believe CNN.

    13. Rupert Taylor profile image96
      Rupert Taylorposted 11 months ago

      "Of course, you believe CNN." How on earth did CNN come into play? I didn't mention it, so you drag a red herring across the discussion to avoid dealing with inconvenient facts.

      And, how can you presume to know what I believe? We have never met. You don't know me. I might find CNN as repugnant as Alex Jones, but you find it possible to make a statement about my beliefs without a single shred of evidence to back it up.

      Anyway, I'm done with this rubbish. Bye.

      1. crankalicious profile image94
        crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Rupert, you just succinctly explained how Trump supporters arrive at most of their conclusions - red herrings, factless...

    14. Flower Child Fe profile image65
      Flower Child Feposted 11 months ago

      Trump supporters will get upset but oh, well. I just want to make one thing clear. From my original response, I did not say whether I was a Dem, Rep, or Independent. I'm speaking on how I personally feel, and If the events of 2020 have made me afraid of white people, republicans, police or whoever it's my true feelings. I know all white people aren't bad and racist but I don't know who's who, so I'm afraid of all of you right now. I don't know what you're capable of, well actually, thanks to YouTube and videos I do know exactly what white people, police and Republicans are capable of when it comes to people with black or brown skin like me.

      And yes, people were protesting too, but the majority of the peaceful protesters were masked and the riots started at night after Trump's extremists' groups came out. And yes, there were a few black Trumpers too.  And for anyone who had doubted just look at what type of people showed up in DC over this past weekend for Trump's rally, white, violent extremists' racist people, period. (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/million- … f3d2f7dae3) with a sprinkle of stupid black people.

      Look, when shit really hits the racial fan or when you piss a white person off enough, including in biracial marriages, their true feelings do come out and you will know exactly where you really stand with them. (http://yourblackworld.net/2020/05/26/90 … he-n-word/) and this article brings my point right home that when you piss them off their inner truth will present itself as it did, unfortunately, for this family.
      (https://www.reddit.com/r/JustNoSO/comme … the_nword/)

      What I will also say is with Biden we pretty much know what to expect and I can live with that. What I can't live with is not knowing what to expect and at least Bidens trying to work on the virus, so we can at least get as close back to normal as we possibly can safely, Trump in his damn bunker hiding and tweeting because he's a sore loser.

      Trumpers, if someone cares for you, they are not going to have to be talked out of nuking Iran. (https://www.ibtimes.com/trump-wanted-at … no-3083534)
      Now if somebody gives a freak about you, they're not going to consider starting a war with a country that has absolutely nothing to lose and will fight back immediately. So, you're that much of a sore loser that you're going to risk starting World War 3 while we're already in a war in the South China Seas (https://thediplomat.com/2020/08/the-us- … china-sea/).

      I mean, look how these cult followers get angry when you talk about the grown man child that is Donald Trump. News, Flash! Trump Don't Care Nothing About You followers He ONLY Cares for Your Vote and Now Since He Lost You Are Disposable, but He'll Take Your Money to Pay Off His Debt. Stupid People.

      Someone who cares for his supporters would not leave them stranded in the cold at night after coming out during a pandemic to support HIM, and he lost some of his votes due to this, hence, another reason why he lost along with lying and telling his supporters that mail don't work and it backfired on him. Tell people the mail doesn't work, they chose not to use the mail, so votes lost, tell your people they don't need a mask, so they chose not to wear a mask and got the virus and did not make it, so, more votes lost. What's the death count now? A whole lot of Trump votes buried. Yo, Trump, Karma is a Bitch, isn't she? God Bless the ones who trusted Trump and the ones who didn't make it. (https://people.com/politics/trump-leave … gia-rally/)

      You're Already Trying to Make It Through A Pandemic or whatever you Trumpers call what's going on in this world with illness and death with NO stimulus help and Now You're Sending Money to A Billionaire with a four-million-dollar debt, Now How Dumb Do You Need to Be to Do That?

      1. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Seems you truly believe all that you have said, and actually much of it could be true.  It well appears you think of white people using the prerequisite that if they are Republicans they are racist, if Dem they are not racist.

        Not sure why you think Biden will solve the problems you seem to have with White people, Obama certainly did Black American's no favor. I am going and offer my view and be honest --- lots of "white people" are not at all interested in solving the world's problems. And care more about living their own lives, and doing the right things to get by in their own worlds.  In truth, many don't even think about racial problems. I know I don't get up in the morning and think to myself, how can I be racist today. 

          And I fully expect to get all the righteous to step up and disagree with my view. But, as you put it "hit really hits the racial fan "  An innate form of truth does surface.

        You seem to be good at dishing it out, which you have every right to do on an opinion forum. But so do I, and in no respect am I trying to insult you or your opinion. I am sure you came by it as I have come by mine --- living life...

        1. peterstreep profile image80
          peterstreepposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          lots of "white people" are not at all interested in solving the world's problems. And care more about living their own lives, and doing the right things to get by in their own worlds.  In truth, many don't even think about racial problems. I know I don't get up in the morning and think to myself, how can I be racist today. 

          No of course not. Most white people don't think about racism. As they are not the target.
          Racism is a big problem in the US, and the concerns of Flower Child Fe expresses this. If you don't recognize it as a big problem, and I don't think you do as you marginalize it by saying "interested in solving the world's problems. " - just one of those problems...
          Then you will never solve the deep rooted problem of racism in the USA. The fears of Flower Child Fe are genuine and her fears are absolutely justified looking at how Trump handled the racism problem in the US. By not condemning the actions of white supremacy groups, but by attacking Black Lives Matter and a terrible handling of the death of George Floyd. Did he go to the black communities to share his concerns? Nope.
          And so yes, in the light of the history of the US and the last 4 years of neglecting a huge racial problem. It makes sense what Flower Child Fe said.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Wow, slow it down, Peter... You have totally taken my comment out of context. First, when I say ---  "lots of white people do not care about lots of "white people" are not at all interested in solving the world's problems. And care more about living their own lives, and doing the right things to get by in their own worlds.  In truth, many don't even think about racial problems. I know I don't get up in the morning and think to myself, how can I be racist today. " This is my opinion simple and straight up. Just as Flowrchild offered her opinion, I offered mine. Just as your opinion  --- "Most white people don't think about racism. As they are not the target."

            "If you don't recognize it as a big problem, and I don't think you do as you marginalize it by saying "interested in solving the world's problems. " - just one of those problems..."

            I did not marginalize the problem of racism at all, in fact, I did not give my opinion on the subject, my feelings. I gave an opinion on part of the problem as I see it.  Many people as I see it could care less about the problem of systemic racism. I see this as truth, you may not have the same opinion on this subject.

            You know nothing about my views of systemic racism ...  I shared a view, to simplify that view --- I feel many do not even think about race problems, but simply care about what is going on in their day to day lives. Ad I certainly did not belittle this woman's views in fact I addressed them honestly -- "Seems you truly believe all that you have said, and actually much of it could be true. "

            I find it offensive that you assume I don't recognize racism, as I said I did
            not share my own views on the subject.

            In regards to Trump and your feelings about race. I don't agree in the least. In fact, I feel he looked at all Americans as one. I don't intend to argue that subject, due to our opinion on that subject would be very far apart. I don't waste energy. However, I will share my view in regards to the fact that for decades our presidents have done very little to address systemic racism. They certainly promised to, but just fell short.

            In regard to Flower Childs's feels, I am sure she feels exactly as she shared.  Why wouldn't she? Many in society has deemed her to feel different. Pont her out, made very sure to make her feel different.  Never the same... I was trying to gently say --- Many white people don't think about making her feel different, they simply are more concentrated on their lives and are not of the mind to think of her differently.

            " lots of "white people" are not at all interested in solving the world's problems. And care more about living their own lives, and doing the right things to get by in their own worlds.  In truth, many don't even think about racial problems. I know I don't get up in the morning and think to myself, how can I be racist today. "

            Does this type of person help with systemic racism? Maybe they do,
            by just not even being willing to say they see a problem... But just meshing with the people in their lives, seeing them as having many of the same problems of daily life.

            You may not understand this --- But many of us are not willing to continue making any race feel different, we just hope to look at all as human beings. Hopefully, it's catchy, because it's the only way to stop people like Flower Child from feeling the way she does.

            Was my comment harsh, too in your face? Well, maybe, but I hope she felt I was being truthful, not saying something to her that I would not say to anyone of any race.  Not walking on eggshells, which would possibly appear as placating her due to the color of her skin. As far as I see it that's part of the problem. Yes, I realize FC has fears, I don't want to be a person that makes her realize that her fears warranted, that all white people and Republicans are out to hurt her.  Because as I tried to say, they actually are not.

            1. peterstreep profile image80
              peterstreepposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              If I read your comment wrongly then my apologize Sharlee. The basic point I want to make is this: If in your neighbourhood racism does not exists, because for instance you live mainly in a white area. It does not mean that it does not exists.. And it is a problem that is to often downplayed. And I thought you were downplaying the problem by putting it on a heap with other problems.
              I agree with you that Trump is definitely not the only President who neglected the wide spread racism problem.
              I also think it's not a party line problem and should simply finger point to republicans. Therefore racism and Black Lives Matter should not be categorized as politics. It's often labelled as a left wing thing...Same as climate change is labelled as left wing. Racism doesn't give a damn about political colour neither does climate change. It is simply there and should be dealt with. (The How can be a matter of opinion and politics.)
              Trump was not just passive in his actions to tackle the problem of racism, he did not condemn extreme right-wing white supremacy. And that is something you can condemn in itself, as not taking a stand on racist behaviour and tolerating it, is giving it consent.
              In short a problem does not go away by ignoring it. And apparently racism is felt as a huge problem. Not by me, not by many white people (and why should they, as they are not on the receiving end of the stick), but that does not mean it is a trivial thing.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Actually, Trump did time after time after time condemns white supremacy. it was just not in the tone some wanted to hear it. Trump worked to make an attempt to put his money where his mouth was, providing the Opportunity Zones, support black colleges, prison reform... He actually did things not just dramatic talk of what he would do, that just never got done. I have supplied actions taken, deeds. This president never ever insulted blacks with off-color dog whistles. As for Biden being a racist  ", he is smart and clean" you aren't black enough" referring to blacks as preditors, "I don't want my kids going to school in a jungle" ---  No dog whistles there straight up innate rasium. All true, and can be proven easily.

                Quote Trump ever saying anything so despicable. Time to drop the Trump is racist cry. It just is not true and never was. Sad to think how many weak mined bought into this kind of sick rhetoric.

                And it's clear you did not comprehend what I said. So I rest it at that. I don't need all the very apparent mouth play about systemic racism. Like I stated I strive to treat all human beings the same, hope that spreads.

      2. Kenna McHugh profile image89
        Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Reported as a troll.

        1. profile image0
          PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Seriously? That's awfully thin skinned of you.

          1. crankalicious profile image94
            crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            It's just a tad bit scary that a black person expressing that she is scared living in America is labeled a troll.

            It might be a better learning experience to investigate how and why a black person might feel this way and what her experiences were that made her feel these things.

            Eh, too hard. Label her a troll.

            1. profile image0
              PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              The undying support of Trump from so many Americans is more than a tad bit scary.

    15. abwilliams profile image64
      abwilliamsposted 11 months ago

      Troll...

    16. Rupert Taylor profile image96
      Rupert Taylorposted 11 months ago

      And so, A.B. Williams gives us the benefit of her wisdom on the topic "Troll..."

      It is sadly rare these days to come across eloquently argued analyses such
      as this one. Often the discourse is reduced to talking points supplied by others, but here we see the sagacity of an open mind exposed for all to see. It is a revealing glimpse into another world.

      Of course, we are left to guess as to whom the epithet is directed, but we have our suspicions.

      Never mind, what the comment lacks in relevance to the subjects under discussion it makes up for in brevity and for that we can be profoundly thankful.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        I don't know about that eloquence or that open mind.  What I got out of the rant was:

        I'm scared of white people
        White people do unspeakable bad things to black people.
        Police and Republicans are bad people, too.
        "Trumpers" are the worst of all, and are stupid as well.

        Personally, I didn't find it either eloquent oropen minded; I found it extremely racist, a closed minded person listening to the rants of the far left radicals.

        1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
          Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          I agree. One can spin, spin and spin.

        2. abwilliams profile image64
          abwilliamsposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          No doubt Wilderness, my sentiments exactly.

        3. peterstreep profile image80
          peterstreepposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          The question you have to ask is why.
          Why is a person afraid of white people.
          What created this.
          But you are afraid to ask such questions. As then you have to analyse your own society. But you don't seem to see the racism in your country. Except for when a coloured person tells her concerns and fears.
          Now those fears are completely rational and can be backed up by the history of the United States. Slavery, KKK, sitting on the back of the bus, separate benches for whites and blacks, up to the killing of George Floyd. The United States has a long history of racism, and this is not going away in just one generation.
          And if people don't see or acknowledge the racism, like president Trump and many others, then there will always be a fear like Flower Child Fe is talking about.
          So if you find a "rant" against white people closed minded and racist, think again. And see this personal concern in the context of the history of the United States and the last 4 years of not condemning white supremacy.
          And if you do this, then her "rant" is not so crazy at all.

          1. abwilliams profile image64
            abwilliamsposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Good question Peter, why is she afraid of white people? White people aren't commiting crimes against people of color. Black on black crime is what she should really be afraid of. It is out of control in inner cities. Inner cities which have been governed (more like ignored!!) by Democrats for decades!
            People can pretend that's not true....but that will not make the concerned young woman any safer in her community.
            Yes, the U.S. has a past when it comes to racism, but we moved on and have worked tirelessly to get passed it.  President Barack Obama, elected twice to the office of the Presidency, has made it a practice to condemn this Country with every opportunity (AS IF we have been stuck in the 60's). He has made it a practice to place wedges and provoke and divide.

            AS IF....he wants the great strides made here in this Country to be seen as trivial and insignificant. Why?!?
            Have you heard of the #walkaway campaign? It is made up of people who have walked away from the divisive Democratic Party. They've seen for themselves what's happening with Barack Obama's Party and they want no part of it! The majority of those walking away are people of color. They understand and embrace the fact that the enormous inclusive umbrella is over the Republican Party, not the Dem Party. President Donald J. Trump and the Republican Party welcomes ALL with open arms. It is growing by leaps and bounds, as the Dem Party diminishes and becomes less relevant with each new day.

            1. IslandBites profile image90
              IslandBitesposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              SMH

              1. abwilliams profile image64
                abwilliamsposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Maybe instead you should do your homework.

                1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
                  Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  I agree. People need to do their homework. Look and see for yourself, the media is bias. What does the media gain from trying to keep us in fear, hopeless, and divided? Advertisers that push OTC/prescription drugs. Watch the news and observe: bad news, bad news, break to a commercial about drugs that handles anxiety and depression. Things just don't happen they are planned.

                  1. abwilliams profile image64
                    abwilliamsposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    So true Kenna.
                    How else can they control a Nation, especially a Nation built on the idea of all power belonging to the people, all focus on the individual and their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? They must infiltrate all areas of influence; the schools, the church, media, get us to the point where we become exhausted and give up and give in...whatever means works to get us to that point...so they, the Gov, can "fix it", no thank you! Not buying any of this Marxist's crap being sold...

                    1. crankalicious profile image94
                      crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      Please define Marxism. It's clear you're not using the term correctly.

                2. Sharlee01 profile image84
                  Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  I agree, it would seem to just add a vague SMH that shows one really has no opinion they can share on a given subject, so why post a blurb that indicates confusion?  Baiting, or just keeping out of the fray?

                  1. profile image0
                    PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Actually, I can relate to her "SMH" response. How can one have a discussion about a subject with a person who simply dismisses it? You can't. So, you just shake your head and walk away.

                    1. abwilliams profile image64
                      abwilliamsposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      It's not "dismissing it" PP, but rather, not buying into it.

                  2. Kenna McHugh profile image89
                    Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    I agree. All one has to do is watch the press conference, which, unfortunately, the media has altered completely.

                    1. profile image0
                      PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      Would you please provide evidence that the media altered the press conference? I watched it live.

              2. profile image0
                PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Yup.

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Lots of people are deathly afraid of COVID, too.  And of alien abduction.  And of being forced to have chips implanted in their bodies.  And of vaccines.  The list of things people are afraid of is unlimited.

            So yes, ask why.  And we can start with a massive media (all types) effort to convince black people that whites are "out to get them", that cops all over the country are just looking for a black man to kill.  We can set aside the black on black killings, talking only of police shootings here, and eventually convince the gullible that the danger is from cops, any cop, rather than their black neighbor.  The neighbor that is far (far!) more likely to kill them than that cop on the beat.  We can convince them to carry a huge chip on their shoulder, actively looking for any intended or unintended slight to take offense at.  We can convince them that their white neighbor owes them reparation for what an unknown white did to an unknown black 200 years ago.  We can teach them that they are different.

            Yes, the US has a long history of racism, very ugly racism.  And it has improved almost beyond belief, to the point that one has to search, and search hard, to find examples.  They are there, of course, and those rare examples are what we hear about.  Even then it usually has to be twisted and spun, with only half the story told, to turn it into actual racist or discriminatory events.

            Not condemning white supremacy?  When my state had an enclave in the north, the people there got together and worked hard to drive them out.  White people, for there are not many black folks that live there - white people, without an axe to grind, without a personal iron in the fire, destroyed that enclave and drove them out of the state.  That's the reality of white racism in this country - not the cops that look for blacks to kill, not the institutionalized "racism" being bandied about by those seeking to split the country by race.

            1. peterstreep profile image80
              peterstreepposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Some people think COVID is a hoax, as it does not exists within their community. They don't know anybody who died of it.
              If you do not personal experience something, it does not mean it does not exist. The moon is still there if you close your eyes.
              That's more or less what I'm saying.
              It is easy to underestimate racism as a white person in a mainly white community. It is easy to to think that people who complain about racism are just spoiled brats. Often with problems like these. Like Racism, sexual harassment, bullying, discrimination in other forms. Only a small percentage of the people who live with this on a regular bases open their mouths.Until a line is suddenly crossed. Like Harvey Weinstein for the MeToo hashtag and George Floyd for Black Lives Matter.
              On such a moment the dam breaks and a lot of people who were silent suddenly dare to tell their personal story.
              Personally I was shocked by the amount of friends who posted on Facebook the #MeToo story. Rape is not a thing many woman easily talk about. Let alone declare. Same with racism.
              I wish to believe you Willderness if you say that the US has improved a lot. And I hope so. Obama was in this respect an example, that you can become President as a black person. And I think he was a inspiration for many in the black community. Regardless if you agree with him yes or no. But the possibility that you can become president is a sign of hope. An Atheist as a president is probably to much to ask ;-)

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Obama may well have been an inspiration to blacks, beyond the obvious matter of a black in the White House.

                He did, after all, immediately jump on a cop shooting a black cop long before the whole story or investigation was even begun, let alone over.  And such things could well be an "inspiration" to those that simply don't care as long as a white cop can be hung out to dry.  It's called racism and it not only exists today it is growing even as the incidence of white cops intentionally targeting blacks for murder is shrinking almost to the point of invisibility.

      2. abwilliams profile image64
        abwilliamsposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Shame on ‘the troll’ for commenting simply for the sake of stirring up trouble and shame on all those that would call it anything other than what it is, an attempt to stir up trouble. But, I shouldn’t be surprised that some would read such a nasty diatribe and become an instant fan of such rubbish.

        1. profile image0
          PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Oh, come on. She stated how she feels. The only "trouble" that creates is in the souls of Trump supporters whose last remnant of a conscience causes them gas pains when confronted by the reality of what they have enabled.I

          But, oh no, let's not reflect on any of it. Let's just cry "Troll!" and rid ourselves of that pesky conscience poker so we can go back to our comfy little bubbles.

          Sheesh.

          1. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            That is my take on this 100 percent. There are no attacks as she expresses her personal opinion, nobody says that that those in disagreement has to like it.

            So, we have crybabies that through their frailty and weakness imposes a form of censorship upon the rest of us?

            1. profile image0
              PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Apparently so. We can hope the moderators will take the time to really read what went on here before banning anyone.

              1. crankalicious profile image94
                crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Snowflakes.

    17. Credence2 profile image80
      Credence2posted 11 months ago

      2020 has been a year where we discover that intolerance and tyranny have proven just as contagious and as virulent as the COVID-19.

      https://news.yahoo.com/trump-allies-fra … 10548.html

      We are now seeing that the Trump campaign is not just seeking to verify vote counts in specific states but want to use some sort of "slight of hand" to nullify the results of the entire election.

      That authoritarian and anti-democratic spirit permeates throughout right wing oriented Trumpthink supporters. But for the other 75 millions that voted for Biden, Trump's lame attempts to be coronated king will not stand.

      So if it feels like it,  smells like it or looks like it, you call it what it is, "fascism".

      We certainly need to be concerned, because this stubborn contentiousness by the Republicans has not been seen even in the darker times of this nation's history. Times being what they are, responsible people can no longer look the other way.

      But, on January 21, 2021, Trump will either have vacated 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, or be introduced to the point of a bayonet applied to that ample rump of his as encouragement to move along.

      1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
        Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Yahoo? Really?

        1. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, really.

          There are numerous other journalist outlets that attests to the same. It is only Breitbart and Alex Jones that say to the contrary and I will never give any credence to rightwing oriented media.

          Has not your advocacy of  "slight of hand" approach been the main thrust of your argument as to how Trump will remain in office against the will of the majority of the electorate?

          1. crankalicious profile image94
            crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            The support for what Trump is doing now is how dictatorships get started and how free societies end. Every Republican, were they patriots, would be denouncing this behavior.

            1. profile image0
              PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Exactly. But, how many times over the past four years has this been stated? Trump fans are all in. They want their man to remain in office no matter what it takes. Lie, cheat, steal....it's fine by them as long as their personal desires win out. There can be no other explanation for their continued defense of Trump's strongman tactics.

              1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
                Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Parroting the media spin is not legit anymore.

                1. Credence2 profile image80
                  Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  So, what is your "spin" Kenna and why is it any different?

                2. crankalicious profile image94
                  crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  You have to be blind. Trump says there's fraud, but his court cases are not about fraud. He has not proof of fraud. If anyone is parroting media spin, it's you.

                  How does it feel to be one of Trump's suckers? The evidence is right in front of you. Trump says one thing, but the actual evidence isn't there. His lawyers have even admitted it. Guiliani even admitted it in court: "This case isn't about fraud."

              2. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Hmm.  Sounds very much like Trump haters and their tactics.  Lie, cheat and steal hardly scratches the surface of what they produced in their massive witch hunt and faux impeachment.

                1. profile image0
                  PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Yeah, yeah, yeah, deflect to the same ol' tired response. The mounds of evidence in the one case versus the paucity of evidence in the other is so monumentally contrasting  that your deflection is simply pathetic.

                2. crankalicious profile image94
                  crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Except it wasn't a lie and it wasn't a faux impeachment. This is a case of if you keep repeating the same lie, maybe people will believe it. Do you need that link to the bipartisan report yet again?

                  Furthermore, it wasn't even the only thing Trump could have been impeached for. There was obstruction of justice and the violation of the emoluments clause. All with real factual evidence.

            2. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Explain, please.  Explain how it was OK, and absolutely necessary, to run a 3 year investigation into election fraud of Russians posting fake social media posts but when a conservative points out actual, real fraud it is how free societies end.

              Whether I believe there was sufficient fraud to change the election (I don't) or not, I'm at a real loss to understand how checking and testing for fraud is the end of free societies.  I would have said it was the opposite - that the fraud we saw in the (distant) past should never be allowed to resurface and that checks are necessary to ensure it does not, not that checks produce a dictatorship.

              1. crankalicious profile image94
                crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Again, we repeat the same lie. The impeachment was about the Trump campaign working with Russia to influence our election. It was proven that the Trump campaign communicated with Russia and invited their interference. What exactly is more anti-American than that?

                They're not testing for fraud. In their court filings, they aren't charging fraud. They're charging process violations. They're just telling YOU there's fraud so that you will repeat it until you believe it.

                How clear can it be. Trump is claiming fraud in the media, but his lawyers are not claiming fraud in court.

                And now, Trump is trying to push the Michigan legislature to overturn the election by assigning electors favorable to Trump.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Don't be obtuse: the impeachment was about Democrats removing an opponent they hated.  They never provided any proof of their claims or Trump would already be out of office.

                  If proper "process" is not followed, resulting in a biased vote count swinging the election, I'd have to go with the legal team: it IS fraud.

                  1. crankalicious profile image94
                    crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    They provided plenty of evidence. They impeached him. The Republicans simply chose not to follow the Constitution.

                    There was bribery, obstruction of justice, and a violation of the emoluments clause. Republicans, as they have from the beginning, have chosen to completely ignore violations of our laws and Constitution.

              2. profile image0
                PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Romney tweeted the statement: "Having failed to make even a plausible case of widespread fraud or conspiracy before any court of law, the President has now resorted to overt pressure on state and local officials to subvert the will of the people and overturn the election."

                "Wild press conferences erode public trust. So no, obviously Rudy and his buddies should not pressure electors to ignore their certification obligations under the statute. We are a nation of laws, not tweets," Sasse said.

                Do you consider these tactics to be legitimate? A necessary check, as you put it?

                https://www.newsweek.com/romney-sasse-c … es-1548910

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Have you watched Rudy's press conference?  IMO he made a completely, 100% valid point when he mentioned that they have compiled evidence that in other times would have taken months - he has had 2 weeks.

                  Again, IMO, this outcry that there is "no evidence" is completely bogus, for there has been neither the time to get that evidence together nor the time to fit it into individual state's requirements for what is legal and what is not and then to file suits according to those state's requirements for that.

                  Is the tactic of combating false media claims "legitimate"?  I would say so, particularly as he produced (to the media) that is freely available in court filings.  Why?  Do you think that transparency and educating the people is illegitimate?

                  1. profile image0
                    PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    You completely ignored the content of my post and my question so I do not feel compelled to respond to your non-response.

                    1. wilderness profile image95
                      wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      From your post that I replied to: ""Having failed to make even a plausible case of widespread fraud or conspiracy before any court of law..."

                      That was exactly what I was replying to: the claims that there is no evidence in a court of law, after only 2 weeks of investigation and negotiating the intricacies of half a dozen different courts.  The idea that there is no evidence, already presented in a court of law, after only two weeks is ridiculous.

          2. Kenna McHugh profile image89
            Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            The truth is there. Look for yourself.

            1. Credence2 profile image80
              Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Alright...

              1. crankalicious profile image94
                crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Sound like Rudy's line, except the truth ISN'T out there. He said in court his case WASN'T about fraud.

                Did you know Trump was born in China? And I can prove it...
                Did you know that Trump had sex with 6-year-old girls? And I can prove it...

                How do you keep asserting fraud when Trump and his lawyers and Giuliani haven't presented an iota of evidence that there was fraud in any of their court cases?

                And now, Trump is going a different route - an overt coup. Trying to overturn the election by influencing electors and trying to get them to change their vote, in violation of the law.

                1. Credence2 profile image80
                  Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  This is not surprising, Crank.

                  How many more attempts at lighting a Reichstag Fire can we anticipate from this lame duck administration between now and next January 21?

            2. Credence2 profile image80
              Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              "This is going to the Supreme Court. Where they will rule that the election is invalid due to fraud or mistakes on a country wide scale.  It will go one of two ways, either they will rule that all the unconstitutional
              mail in ballots will be removed and the states ordered to recount without them  or they will simply rule the election is invalid due to mass voter fraud and at that point it will be sent to the congress and senate for a vote. This is where it gets good. The house/congress votes on who the President will be. It has nothing to do with what party that has power. Every State gets one vote and 30 States are held by Republicans.and 19 by Democrats. They have to vote down party lines, they have no choice due to the 12th Amendment of the Constitution and the Senate votes for the Vice President where a similar even will take place.  This is The law."

               

              So, you have researched all of it? You get information from lawyers that virtually have to be sleeping with Trump to lay out the outcome the way they do. Regardless, this sounds like a "slight of hand" to me. Fundamentally, this is what you are saying, is it the truth? Trump and his band of usurping henchman will never prevail.

              The proof has yet to be presented.

      2. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        It's really fascinating to me to watch as liberals claim, over and over and over, that there is no need to investigate election fraud...after spending millions and 4 years of FBI time investigating election fraud.  "Fraud" where Russians posted lying social media posts - something entirely legal in their country.

        But let a Republican president suggest there is fraud and the world comes apart.  Not possible, and certainly should not be checked!  Do NOT check for fraud when a Democrat wins!

        Can we all chant "hypocrisy" in unison?  Perhaps 300 million voices raised together will convince liberals that they are not above the law.

        1. profile image0
          PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          When Trump first claimed election fraud, my first response on these forums was "Let him prove it." His attempts to do so have, so far, been lame if not laughable.

          Still, I say let him prove it.

      3. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        It seems this thread is all over the place...

        "We are now seeing that the Trump campaign is not just seeking to verify vote counts in specific states but want to use some sort of "slight of hand" to nullify the results of the entire election."

        Let's look at the facts --- Trump has the right to ask for recounts in some cases.  He is not at this point using "slight of hand" but using our own court systems to bring forth sworn affidavits of these "irregularities".  He certainly has so far brought up some very relevant claims, now time to prove these claims in court or forever hold his peace.

        "That authoritarian and anti-democratic spirit permeates throughout right-wing oriented Trumpthink supporters. "

        What Trump is doing is not anti-democratic. Our laws give him the right to pursue his day in court. He has rights... If this shoe was on the other foot, you would be espousing those rights loudly.

        "So if it feels like it,  smells like it or looks like it, you call it what it is, "fascism".

        How in he-- does Trump exserting his given legal rights entering our courts of the land constitute FASCISM? No, really this is just pure conjecture on your part.

        "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

        1. crankalicious profile image94
          crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Seriously, what planet are you living on? What news are you following?

          What relevant claims? Name one. ONE. A "relevant" claim has evidence. Show me some evidence.

          What he's doing is not anti-democratic? Calling a Michigan election official who then shockingly changes her mind about certifying the vote? Inviting Michigan legislatures to the Oval Office in an effort to try to get them to overturn the will of the people and disenfranchise all of Detroit?

          I hope Trump realizes what will happen if he were to actually be successful.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            What I stated is his legal team has stated they have sworn affidavits of these "irregularities. I said no ore no less. You are reading into my comment taking away the context.  I never claimed that I had evidence, my statement was very clear. I gave no opinion in regards to any evidence. It would be my understanding that if the evidence would be shown in the various courts. The presidents have the right to build a case, the representatives from Michigan were on our very local TV saying they were not going to certify, and that they had not been in communication with Trump or his attornies. It appears they then changed their minds. Which they have the right to.  As Trump has the right to ask them questions, they have the right to refuse to meet with him or his legal team. I have not watched the news today. I will assume if these two reps meet with him, they will be able to offer their own account on this entire matter. I am not going to read anything into this other than facts.

            I think all of this should be left in the hands of the courts. I trust our system to do the right thing and follow our laws, and offer the President his constitutional rights, and when all is said and done I will be satisfied he was afforded those rights. 

            I hope Trump will respect the court's decisions whatever way they go. If he does not win in court  --- I will once again I will trust our laws to deal with removing him. If he wins he may be president for four more years. And for what will happen that is predictable due to how many in this country have lost respect for democracy and upholding it. 

            I  must share -- I am in no way pleased at the prospect of Biden being the president.  I think him unfit to hold office, I fear for my country under such a confused elderly man that could be manipulated in every respect.  But, you won't see me in the streets disregarding the will of the people....  You won't see me being lead to outrage, fear due to a media and party that fire up such discontent. My god wakes up... It's not everyday citizens that have caused this great divide it's THEM. I suggest calling down to let our courts do their job. Don't assume we know what the outcome will be... Just more what if... It's not we that lost causing this uproar, it those that won, and their media.  Let this run its course, before screaming conspiracy.  There is plenty of time if need be.

            1. crankalicious profile image94
              crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              But he is not accepting the court's decisions.

              He is trying to interfere now in the certification process by getting electors to switch their votes in states that he lost. Please explain how that is Democratic.

              If he succeeds, without clearly demonstrating fraud, it's the end of our country as we know it.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                "He is trying to interfere now in the certification process by getting electors to switch their votes in states that he lost. Please explain how that is Democratic." 

                How is he getting electors to switch?   Has he or his legal team contacted any electors?

                I did not say or address the president interfering with the certification process or the president trying to get an elector to switch their vote in my comment.  I have not witnessed this as of yet. At this point, I am confused by your response.   If he should try to interfere with electors' vote would I certainly would disapprove.  I did read Trump was meeting with two Michigan  GOP legislative leaders today,  Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, and House Speaker Lee Chatfield. I have no idea why they are meeting, he has given no information on why they are meeting.

                I live in Michigan the story broke yesterday after two Wayne county Two Republican Wayne County canvassers had signed affidavits saying they regret their votes Tuesday to certify the Nov. 3 election and then arguing that "intense bullying and coercion" plus bad legal advice forced them to agree to certify the election after they had voted no. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ … 775246001/

                Trump has a  right to talk with these GOP legislative leaders.

                In my view, this all needs looking into. Sorry, we disagree. If the president is caught trying to interfere illegally with electors he should be prosecuted. I would not think he will succeed in keeping himself in office if his claims are proven to be untrue. If he proves his claims, I honestly don't know what happens in regards to the law. I would assume this will go to the Supreme Court.  IMO if the numbers don't change he should give up his fight to remain president. However,  push to follow the trail of fraud and if he can prove it, those that committed it should be prosecuted.

                I don't feel we as a country will be satisfied to accept any kind of fraud in our elections.  His Lawsuits could provide a deterrent to anyone that would break our election laws.

              2. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Which court has seen the full line of the alleged evidence and rendered a decision on it?  (Might be kind of difficult to answer as the suits have not been filed yet with that information, but give it a try).

                "If he succeeds, without clearly demonstrating fraud, it's the end of our country as we know it."

                You're right.  And if he succeeds in maintaining the presidency after clearly demonstrating massive fraud, what then?  Is it still the end of our country as we know it?  Because I would almost say it is the end of the Democratic party and possibly the end of peaceful voting.

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            If he is successful in overturning an election, based on voter fraud by Democrats, this country is truly in deep doo doo.  But not because of a man that was subjected to massive fraud - if that happens it will be because of those people that produced that massive fraud. 

            But let me ask you - if (IF) these claims are true and there WAS massive fraud, what should Trump do...considering only the good of the country and not himself or his presidency?  Should he let it go, encouraging the same in the future, or should he pursue such a travesty of our voting system, the bedrock of our country?

            I've said from the beginning that I don't believe there was massive fraud.  But listening to Rudy the question opens up some in my mind.  I found some of what he and his cohorts had to say to be pure political BS, I found some of it to be more along the lines of a conspiracy theory without basis.  But I also found that a good deal of it, assuming the truth of his claimed evidence, does indeed point to massive fraud.  And it even points to a concerted, planned and controlled fraud if I understand what was being said properly. 

            The question is very much open in my mind, after being nearly closed.  That's what happens when evidence comes out, I guess.  Perhaps we need a thorough investigation, by Democrats, into the areas that went red.  And then they can check each other's work and point out the flaws.

            Shouldn't take over a decade.

            1. IslandBites profile image90
              IslandBitesposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              I've said from the beginning that I don't believe there was massive fraud.

              To be fair, because it is true you've said that, even before the election. Maybe you should point out which of his claims gave you pause.

              Also, dont you think there's a difference between saying we're concerned because it seems there was some irregularities, or fraud, or whatever you want to call it; and THERE WAS FRAUD! I WON BY A LANDSLIDE! BLA BLA BLA I WON!!??

              That is the point. He's been delegitimizing the process for months now which only erodes the confidence of his followers in the democratic process. And only because he knew he must likely was going to lose. Or have you seen them questioning the rest of the results?

          3. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Funny, the Trump crowd considers only ballots from Detroit, Milwaukee, Philly and Atlanta suspect for further investigation. So what is it that these counties have in common?

            As far as any support from my group, these kinds of outrages just serve to reaffirm what I always believed as they dig themselves in just that more deeply.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              "So what is it that these counties have in common?"

              A very strong Democrat control.  And, according to Rudy, a history of voter fraud - a history that is likely true.  Had you listened to the evidence from Rudy you would have known that.

              What outrage?  That a Republican (gasp) dares to question the integrity of a Democrat, as is their right (and even obligation) under the law?

              The total outrage that Trump, after years of fruitless investigation and a faux impeachment dares to assert his rights under the law is almost comical.  "Almost", because it is also incredibly hypocritical.

              1. Flower Child Fe profile image65
                Flower Child Feposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Rudy was lying so hard he sweated out his temporary hair dye. LOL

              2. crankalicious profile image94
                crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Just exactly how are you rationalizing Trump's blatant interference in the certification process?

                He's failing in court over and over, so has apparently decided that way to remain in office is to interfere and/or subvert the certification process.

                If he were successful in convincing legislatures and/or electors to change their state's popular vote and cast their electors for Trump in opposition to existing state law, would that be impeachable?

                And here we have Biden saying he doesn't want to push back too hard so he has some chance to work with Republicans. Kind. Perhaps that attitude needs to go out the window and when and if Biden takes office, he uses the full force of the federal government to throw Trump in jail for treason.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  According to Rudy, they have not "failed" in any of their court cases.  Which ones (multiple as you say "over and over"), brought by Trump or Rudy, have failed?

                  Impeachable?  I'm not sure, but as I recall from reading the laws on impeachable offenses, simple violation of the law is not impeachable.

                  treason
                  [ˈtrēzən]
                  NOUN
                  the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

                  Which government is he trying to overthrow or betray, by asking the court to be sure laws are followed, or which sovereign is he attempting to kill?  It becomes rather comical with the "crimes" being attributed to Trump after a while.

                  1. profile image0
                    Marisa Writesposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    I'm wondering what Rudy's definition of failure is, then?  Some of the court  cases have already been thrown out of court due to lack of evidence. Those that remain under consideration, relate to small numbers of votes which would not be large enough to change the result.
                    https://time.com/5908505/trump-lawsuits-biden-wins/

                    1. wilderness profile image95
                      wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      Yes, some court cases have been thrown out...but none of Rudy's.  So he says, explaining that at least some of those thrown out were because they had no "legal standing", meaning they had no right to file a case in the first place.

                      For me, I don't know if any of Rudy's have been thrown out, or if they were all from other plaintiffs.  So far all I've seen is that "cases were thrown out" with the strong implication, but no proof, that the Trump legal team had filed them. 

                      I have little trust in Rudy, but I have no more in the media claims either.

                    2. Sharlee01 profile image84
                      Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      I think you are right that the recounts won't produce the numbers Trump needs to turn over the election. However, could he be going to just show voter irregularities to prove our system is flawed? Very hard to really figure out Trump's mindset, the reason or reasons he won't concede.

              3. Credence2 profile image80
                Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                "A very strong Democrat control.  And, according to Rudy, a history of voter fraud - a history that is likely true.  Had you listened to the evidence from Rudy you would have known that."

                Bull$hit, there is a strong Democrat voting constuency in these areas, Wilderness, so let's can the subterfuge, ok? Rudy Guilliani has no credibility as far as I am concerned.

                Trump and the Republicans have the right to a recount of votes, so that everyone is satisfied, but that is it.

                When the obligation to give him his rights under the law concludes without acceptable proof, out he goes.

                I can't make it any clearer than that.

                1. crankalicious profile image94
                  crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  And those counties are predominately or mostly black. Interesting how it's always black people who are the problem. Why doesn't Trump care about the white, suburban counties? Why not check for voter fraud there?

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Philadelphia is almost equal, and Minneapolis is only 20% black.  Pittsburgh is 70% white while Las Vegas is only 12% black.

                    Where are you getting that "counties are predominately or mostly black"?  Just trying to turn it into a race issue again, when it plainly is not?

                    He didn't check white, rural areas because they all went for him and if they didn't would not change the total enough anyway.  A waste of time. 

                    But of Democrats would check out those red areas we might find that it isn't just Democrat areas being accused of fraud...

                    1. crankalicious profile image94
                      crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      The main attack is in Detroit and in other counties with large black populations. Detroit is 79% black.

                      The interesting thing is that he didn't lose the election there since those places are consistently Democratic. He lost the election in the white suburbs. Odd that he's not challenging the counts there, isn't it?

                      In Detroit, he's trying to disenfranchise the entire city. He's not trying to recount there because it wouldn't make any difference. Nor would it in Philadelphia.

                      Where he lost was in the suburbs, but challenging the vote there as fraudulent would take forever. It would be impossible. Hundreds of votes here and there over hundreds of counties.

                      Much easier to just disenfranchise Detroit.

                  2. Sharlee01 profile image84
                    Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    I don't think Trump is directing his complaints to the people that live and in the cities, he has gone after. I think he is pointing the finger at the Dems that run those cities. It would well appear more blacks voted in all of these cities, which indicates voter sprit in these cities.  Pretty sure he is pointing the finger at the Dems, not the citizens.

                2. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  You don't think Democrats are pretty well in control of the political scene then?  Even as you say there is a very strong Democrat constituency?  I'm not quite following the reasoning here.

                  The people, Democrat or Republican, commoner or Trump, do not have the right to ensure fair voting?  I would disagree with that.

                  And you forgot to mention what happens if there IS proof...or is that set aside because you want him out so badly that it doesn't matter?

                  1. Credence2 profile image80
                    Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    But, Wilderness,  a much more logical explanation is that Blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic, enough to change red to blue in many crucial states.

                    As I said in another thread, I will acknowledge Trump as President only if there is irrefutable proof of fraud on a massive scale that could have change the outcome bringing into question the efficacy of the entire process nationwide. And, I emphasize and insist on IRREFUTABLE Proof.

    18. Flower Child Fe profile image65
      Flower Child Feposted 11 months ago

      People only seem to get angry or offended when the shoe fits so if you're angry or offended, then you just may be that shoe wearer. Take the shoe off and open your heart.

      Never a troll, why does one have to be trolling to respond to a topic opened by another member, Kenna McHugh. I can tell you my truth and no, I have not always been afraid of white people. 2020 and Trump made me realize that I needed to be afraid. Some of you "righteous" people have so much to say but will never understand because you have never and will never go through it.

      Let me explain me to some of you.
      1. I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat because I don't agree fully with either of all of their arguments about things. Nancy screwed us all out of the stimulus trying to hurt Trump and the Repub, Trump screwing us all by not protecting us in this world against virus, disease, racist, proud boys, Q, etc. just to hurt Nancy, Biden and the Dems.

      2. I am a happy person by nature, and was even told by a stranger that I have a song in my heart. I have a heart full of love, I am the mom house where all the kids hung out, I have 4 kids, a nurse, a cybersecurity spec, a home improvement company business owner, and a chef. My youngest is 25 and my oldest is 35. I tell you that to say, I have great patience and understanding, and I have a great personal relationship with my God and my Faith in Him is Greatly strong. According to the media and the polls, most of Trump's followers are white people without a college degree, and he's lost some of those. Hmm, confusing, wondering what that says about his followers and him. (https://www.npr.org/2020/09/03/90743351 … to-decline)

      3. I look for the good in everyone, no matter their flaws. I rebuke negativity and always try to find the good first, but everyone doesn't seem to have good in them no matter how hard you look.

      4. I believe no one should be labeled as anything without proof of what you're claiming. People look dumb when they can't provide proof of what and why. Trump's lawyers seem to be doing a lot of that right now, they can't seem to win a case. Oh, except for the one to get them a little closer to the ballots. Trying to give people Covid just to cheat.

      5. I am a great listener and analyzer and I do not jump to conclusions, nor do I allow anyone else to render a conclusion for me. I speak on and make decisions based on proof and experience only, no one can tell me how I should think, feel or respond, because I control me, I can't get sucked into a cult like mindset. You can't tell me something with no proof and expect me to act on it, that is stupid and that is being a follower which I am not.

      6. In my eyes,  fair is fair and right is right and wrong is wrong.

      I am a TRUE believer in Karma and reaping what you sow because again, God doesn't like ugly. It's funny because at a certain age (over 50) black people are trying to get right with God and white people just keep doing bad things like they look forward to going to Hell. Only this type of white person will get upset over this statement.

      I'll say this, Alot of Lifetime movies are based on actual events. So honestly, if I believe all the true story lifetime movies, most white people don't even like other white people. Y'all folks are hilarious. I'll just leave it at that.

      I don't waste my time trying to change people's negative minds, who you are is who you are, whether you're a good person or not "You" will answer to God, I am not judge nor jury. I pray for all lost souls who believe the things that Trump is doing is okay, it tells me that a lot of people are still really really racist towards black and brown people. But don't get into your feelings when you hear a black person saying that because of the events that have occurred in the year of 2020, I feel about white people the same way white people have been and still are feeling about black people. Think about it this way, why is Trump trying to have all votes from black states and counties thrown out as invalid? Sounds to me like voter suppression and a way of not telling but showing that black people that we or our votes don't matter to white people. I am open to hearing anyone else's explanation of this.

      Like Trump, he loses, so he continues to try to cheat, I voice my inner feelings in response to a topic that another person started and I'm a troll.LOL, guess that person is a Trumper as you didn't like what you read and labeled me the dreaded 'Troll". SMH. How adultlike and mature is that, only a Trumper would have an issue with a black person stating their feelings. A non racist person would have been understanding with some sort of empathy because they are a human being with human feelings for all mankind and not only for the ones who have white skin, lie, cheat, steal, threaten etc. other people who don't agree with you. Over 250.000 people have died, what has he said to any of those families. But you love him, what type of person does that make you?

      For all just remember that God doesn't like ugly, and He is not too fond of pretty. OK. So just understand, most people look inside to figure out who someone really is, outside beauty is just for show. In the end, like I've been told before, not everyone is good no matter how hard you wish it. some people are just evil, with no empathy, heart or care for another because they are broken on the inside.

      People like this are the reason why the US will always be divided, but it's never been this in our faces and blatant as it is now. We heard of this type of white privilege being thrown in our face through our grand and great grandparents, never did I think that we would be living in a time of riots, racism, white power groups, black protest, police killings of black people, people ambushing the police, and all of this just to be treated fairly, this is crazy right now and it's unfortunate that in 2020, A time of growing technology that  white Trumpers are trying to take us backwards and it's so in our face as if it's a new trend or something. I have hate for no one, God doesn't believe in hate, so I rarely use that word, but I can strongly dislike.

      God Bless Us All and I Pray that God gives us the vision, empathy and emotion to be a better people and to be able to see and accept other views as well.

    19. Flower Child Fe profile image65
      Flower Child Feposted 11 months ago

      Thank you crankalicious and PrettyPanther

      In response to abwilliams and peterstreep. I have written about that as well,

      I am not a one sided person, I believe everyone should be accountable for their own actions. I tell my black people on my fb page "Stop hollering about black lives matter when blacks killing blacks damn near every day, how can you expect anyone else to care for black lives when you all don't care. I give no passes and I call it like I see it.

      I believe we need the police and If black people break the law they need to be locked up period, but, I feel like black, white, red, or blue, the same crime calls for the same sentence, the color of your skin should not determine your sentence. Black people also need to stop blaming whites for holding them back, again, I believe in no excuses. I have a daughter with a masters in cybersecurity, a daughter who's a nurse, a son who's a chef and a son who owns his own home improvement business, ages 25-35. I say that to say no one can hold you back but you. Right is right and wrong is wrong and it doesn't matter who you are.

      But I'm done with this topic as everyone has their own opinions as they should, and I kinda wish I would never have responded to the initial post by Kenna McHugh. Maybe I'm just a wishful thinker wishing things would change and be better. I'm always going to remain hopeful. Anyway, everyone have a blessed and safe day, wear your mask if you believe in them and stay safe for your senior and/or sick loved ones. A Big Cyber Hug to EVERYONE....

      1. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        You have a blessed day, too. You are obviously a balanced person. These forums can be rough for those unaccustomed to the fray. People are often too quick to dismiss legitimate feelings or thoughts because it would require     reflection that could potentially dismantle their long-held beliefs. It is scary so they just won't even consider the possibility that your points are valid.

        I am white and I am the mother of two autistic young men. I periodically talk with them about the police and how they could best avoid problems if they find themselves in a situation where police are involved. I have seen too many instances of police shooting, tasing, or beating up people who hesitate a microsecond to obey a barked command issued at gunpoint. If you know anything about autism, you know that sensory overload often results in an inability to process what is happening. I truly fear this could result in harm to my boys at the hands of police. So, at least I have a feel for where you're coming from.

      2. abwilliams profile image64
        abwilliamsposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Flower Child Fe, first off, my apologies for making assumptions about you.
        It sounds as if you and your family are living your American dream! That's all that I want for every single individual/family in the United States of America and anywhere else for that matter! For the freedom to pursue our dreams, whatever they may be, to be safe while pursuing those dreams and for it to be passed from one generation to the next. I think we all want that!
        As a Constitutional Conservative, I believe that big, overextended, overindulgent Government gets in the way of our freedom and individual dreams and limits both! When the Government is limited, and the people in control (as outlined beginning with our Declaration of Independence, throughout the U.S. Constitution and continuing with our Bill of Rights)....the sky is the limit.
        Hugs back! Happy Thanksgiving!

    20. abwilliams profile image64
      abwilliamsposted 11 months ago

      Socialism, communism, Marxism... all go hand in hand and I want no part.

      1. profile image0
        Marisa Writesposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Republicanism, Fascism - would you say they are the same thing?  Of course not.  I'm sure you would be horrified to be told you were a fascist.  And yet they are both on the right wing of politics.  The difference is that one is moderate and the other is extreme.

        Given that, why do you think the left wing of politics is different?  There is moderate left wing politics and there is extreme left wing politics.  And they are as widely separated from each other as Republicanism and Fascism.

        Many European countries have had policies similar to Bernie Sanders for nearly 100 years, and yet none of them have slipped into communism or Marxism.  It's not a slippery slope, and history has proved that. Communist countries came about due to revolution against oppressive governments.

        1. savvydating profile image90
          savvydatingposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          No. Don't think so.

          Which European countries do you list?

          1. profile image0
            Marisa Writesposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Let's start with universal health care - UK, all of Scandinavia, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Austria ... I could go on for a long time, but you get the picture.  They also have social housing, environmental policies and much more.

            The funny thing is that many of these countries have governments which they classify as right wing - yet when you look at the wide-ranging social services they provide, they have much more in common with Bernie.

            1. savvydating profile image90
              savvydatingposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              That's an interesting list which I would like to expound upon further. 

              But first, let me say that we have social housing services and environmental policies in the U.S.

              The countries, we can explore later. Tonight, I have other plans.

              But, before I get back to you, are you saying you would be happy to have the U.S. become like Italy, Spain or Portugal?

              Have a nice evening and thank you for your response to my question.

              1. profile image0
                Marisa Writesposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                I live in Australia.  I don't think the US shoudl become like Italy, Spain or Portugal, but I do think it should aspire to becoming like Norway or Germany, for instance.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Much of the (developed) world wishes the US would join them in their far left philosophy of a nanny state that provides for all the needs, responsibilities and duties of every citizen.  It is a view that some in the US share, and work toward, but there are millions and millions more that prefer the freedom to make their own decisions and rely on themselves for their support.  For some it is plain greed; they don't like giving (or being forced to give) charity, for some it is a matter of pride, for others it is simply what they grew up with, but whatever the reason they like being responsible for themselves.

                  Personally I predict that the US will become what most of Europe (and Australia) is...while those countries move ever further towards an all powerful government and wish the US would catch up.

                  1. profile image0
                    Marisa Writesposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    I really need to bow out of this conversation because it's pointless. It's not possible for us to talk to each other because our world views are so different.

                    Europeans, British, Australasians and Canadians can have conversations about politics and we are all more-or-less on the same page.   We have all tended to believe that because the US is also a developed, English-speaking country, you are "like us".   You're not.  American attitudes and culture are as alien to us as the culture of Bhutan or Nepal.

                    Americans are bewildered by our "nanny states" ( as you call it), while we are bewildered by the American system, which to us seems heartless, selfish and greedy.   Trump is all three and has become symbolic of what the US represents for many of us, which is sad.

                    1. gmwilliams profile image84
                      gmwilliamsposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      Marisa, may I ask how do you contend that the American system is a cutthroat system of selfishness & greed?  Do you believe that it is up to the individual to make of his/her life either for better or worse?   I assert that no one owes anybody anything.   People ought to do for themselves or do without.  Of course, there are exceptions such as the mentally, emotionally, physical, &/or intellectually challenged -then in such cases, they should be looked after by the government.

                    2. savvydating profile image90
                      savvydatingposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      I had planned on continuing my conversation from last night, but it appears Marisa is "outta here" Let me only say that Bernie Sanders has proposed a 100% tax on the wealthiest Americans.

                      How absurd.

                      Bernie is not a socialist, he is a communist.


                      In Bernie's world, no one is allowed to be a millionaire, except him and the "anointed ones" at the top, naturally. Bernie has stated, "Well actually, bread lines aren't that bad."

                      Sanders further stated,

                      " What has to be understood is the economic problems of Nicaragua are not unique in Central America or in the third world. In fact, as poor as Nicaragua is, one of the nice things that I saw is that as a result of government policy, direct government policy in terms of the distribution of food, people are not hungry, by and large. I think it’s fair to say. You know, it’s funny, sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country is, that people are lining up for food. That is a good thing! In other countries people don’t line up for food: the rich get the food and the poor starve to death."

                      As for Norway, $25 to $40 for a pizza and approximately $62,500 for a car? No thanks.

                      Germany? Same thing except there, one cannot even buy a house. Too expensive. You're stuck with an apartment.

                      But Marisa got one thing right. American attitudes are different. We value freedom, innovation and enterprise---it's something we're born into and which most of us take for granted, but many more of us truly cherish.

                      No Marisa, we do not want to become Germany or Norway. We are much too vast. It's not like we can bicycle to work because we can't afford a car and everything is so nearby. 
                      Out country would go broke if we adopted Bernie's policies. But, of course, that is his goal: A state run country where the government controls every single aspect of your life and where "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (excerpt from Animal Farm)

                      Hell no.

            2. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              But Marisa, left wing/right wing labels are not absolutes: they are relative labels.  Relative to the general political atmosphere in the country where they are applied.

              So right wing Germans could very well be considered fairly far left in the US, which is why they have more in common with left wing Bernie. 

              The thing is, these labels are not only relative to the locale where used, they are not static.  I have, just in my lifetime, watched as what was once considered pretty far left has become either neutral or even slightly right.  Much of the right is so far right wing now that they are considered radicals, and the left...well, the left mainstream is what was once the far radical left.

              1. profile image0
                Marisa Writesposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                You must be joking. Bernie Sanders would be regarded as a middle-of-the road politician in the UK or Australia, certainly not far left or radical. And he is on the far left of the Democrats, as far as I can see - which means the Democrats are almost right-wing by our definition.

        2. abwilliams profile image64
          abwilliamsposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Good for "many European Countries" Marisa, that's not us! I am not sure why Australians, Canadians, Germans, etc. concern themselves so with the way we do things here.
          Also, I'd beg to differ with your claim of "no slippery slopes".
          Off the top of my head, young Alfie Evans and young Charlie Gard come to mind. Two young boys with serious health issues, living in the UK, victims of socialized medicine. Their Parents had no say in their treatment, they had no recourse in exhausting each and every possible resource. Instead of Parents making decisions about their own flesh and blood.....some unfeeling, uncaring, bottom line, PANEL decided their fate! As a result, these young boys are longer with us here on earth.
          You brought up Fascism....not sure why, we have no such movement here in the States. We definitely do have such a movement.. more of a sprint toward socialism/Marxism.
          It has been glamorized by people such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, she who has recently suggested that the Gov pay us all to just stay home! I am afraid her thought process doesn't last nearly as long...as that last sentence!

          To sum up my thoughts on this particular subject; "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", "dance with the one who brought you."

    21. jada67 profile image26
      jada67posted 11 months ago

      You think Trump cares about you or anyone except himself. Get real. You people are sad and as much demeaned as President Donald Trump.. There's no voter Fraud we know who's voters Trump is trying to over-turn.

      1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
        Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        There is voter fraud. America should not stand for the criminality behind this disenfranchisement. Alexander Hamilton knew this would happen to the American people. In The Federalist Papers, he wrote the process to secure our God given right to vote. That essay transferd over to our Constitution, telling us exactly what to do when this happens.That is what is being done now. Americans need to be patient as some very brave souls clean this mess up.

        1. crankalicious profile image94
          crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Really? Where's the evidence?

          There was massive voter fraud. If something is massive, it's easily seen because it's HUGE. If there's a massive earthquake, can you see its effects? Of course! It's easy.

          What if there's a massive snowfall? Easy to see, right? Everyone knows.

          What about a massive truck, like a monster truck? It's huge! If it's driving down the street, everyone notices.

          So if there's massive fraud, everyone would have been witness to it. Everyone. And evidence would be everywhere.

          So where is it?

          At what point do people realize that they're being duped and lied to in a way that assumes they must be completely stupid?

          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            I just hope Kenna and other patriots who care so much about the truth are donating massive amounts of their own  money to the election fraud fund. Exposing such massive fraud is a massive undertaking requiring massive amounts of money, time, and expertise. Rudy, that brave and determined legal hawk, has been sidelined by the virus so even more money will be needed to hire another lawyer as exquisitely knowledgeable and experienced as Rudy.

            I can't wait until we finally see the horrendous,  widespread,, diabolical election fraud that stole the crown from our rightful ruler. I'm sure Rudy had something up his sleeve when he stated in court there was no fraud. Wily bastard.

            1. crankalicious profile image94
              crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Here's the judge in the most recent Pennsylvania case, tossed out:

              "One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence."

              "In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted."

              Btw, this judge is a well-known Republican, proving that when it comes to proof and evidence, Republicans can favor it over conspiracy when necessary.

              1. profile image0
                PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Yes, it is obvious there is no evidence of we would have seen it by now. I am thankful our legal system is still relatively honorable and competent.

                1. crankalicious profile image94
                  crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  In fact, you have to be a complete idiot to believe what Trump's people are peddling, as I have pointed out. Trump clearly thinks his followers are morons. The contradiction is so obvious.

                  They're claiming MASSIVE fraud. They're claiming a HUGE international conspiracy.

                  Something that big is easy to see and to prove. When things are that big, everyone notices. Something that big cannot be covered up. Ever be around a MASSIVE, HUGE snowfall? Were you able to walk outside and miss it?

                  1. profile image0
                    PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Trump's followers have bought into every con so far, so it is only natural Trump would expect them to fall for this one, too. When, oh when, will they finally see this imposter for what he really is?

                    1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                      Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      It is well evident you just don't and never will look at others as diverse human beings.  It would seem you think your opinion the very final word, pure truth.  Has it occurred to you it may be you that has bought into your opinion due to being fed a media agenda? Is this possible?  Could have the media in some ways help created this "imposter you speak of?

                      It just seems so odd to me that you are and have been so set in your opinion about Trump. And I would assume you aren't personally acquainted with the man, yet you do have a very concrete opinion of this man on what information you have gleaned from media. In your opinion has he not accomplished anything in his time in office? No need to go into why you dislike him for his many verbal opinions. We have agreed he certainly has an outrageous way of communicating. Has he done anything you find has benefited the country?

    22. abwilliams profile image64
      abwilliamsposted 11 months ago

      I never accused you of hating your Country. I questioned why you are embarrassed by it and why you care what the world thinks....why you always focus on the negatives and never the positives. I've never seen it here at HP...perhaps I've missed those times. And yes, you did use the word "shallow", I didn't make it up.
      I am out. I am hosting my husband's family today and will continue to celebrate with family throughout the week. We have MUCH to be thankful for in {as far as I am concerned} the greatest Country that God gave man!  God Bless America!!!!!
      HAPPY THANKSGIVING ALL!

      1. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        I do not consider acknowledging problems to be negative but it is clear you want to view me that way. The irony of it all is that "Make America Great Again" implies that it is no longer great. Perhaps those who wear those hats should stop being so negative. big_smile

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

          "I do not consider acknowledging problems to be negative but it is clear you want to view me that way"

          Perhaps those that wear those red hats not only acknowledged problems they realized they were growing and felt for the past decade we saw America was faltering and losing many of the attributes that they so respected and loved...  Perhaps some in our society wanted action no
          longer settling for words and a Government that was not for the people any longer.  These very people chose to be very brave and elect an outsider. Instead of following a path of the same old...  These are the kind of people that truly did make America great. Those that stood up, and just said NO it all stops here.

          In my opinion, those that just voted in  "same old"  are perfectly fine with, what does Joe say --- Build Back America better?  Sounds like your guy plagiarized "MAGA".    Seems to me ya just voted in Same Old Same Old...

          So are those that wear those MAGA hats negative or are they people that will not drownd I negativity but opt to fix it? Are they brave enough to move away from the negativity that ignoring problems bring? IMO this election showed many Americans are very satisfied with wringing their hands, adding to the Nations's problems. My God, they voted in a man that just has nothing to offer but a rehashed Obama presidency, which was why many saw the need for Trump. And round and round we go...

          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Sigh....it seems you missed the point. I don't think MAGA-hat-wearing food are negative, in the same way I do not think myself and others are negative or "bashing America" for wanting to acknowledge and address problems.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              I don't feel you or anyone is negative for bringing up problems. I think sometimes the way blame is set for some problems to add to problems communicating. In regard to your comment.

              "The irony of it all is that "Make America Great Again" implies that it is no longer great. Perhaps those who wear those hats should stop being so negative"

              IT seemed to me this implied those that wear the MAGA  were being viewed as negative due to the slogan. I tried to give my view of why some may be wearing the hat, not due to a negative view of America. But a view that America was becoming a place they saw as in some sense starting to fail due to our current stagnating Government. So no not a negative cry, but a cry of solidarity to return some of what many felt we were losing or lost.  I don't think it negative to move forward, take a chance for change. In fact, I think it the opposite. To continue with something that is failing or failed seems very negative. Actually taking that all too the easy way out.

              I don't fault you at all for bringing up problems, this forum is the place to do just that.  I will admit it can get boring, and that have beat many subjects to death, and still no solutions. Yes, that is frustrating but acceptable.

      2. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        You have out your finger on something that needed pointing out... The negativity here is palpable.  It has taken hold of many, and the problem is growing.  I share your attitude. I enjoy every day, I built a life that provides me the rewards that being positive offers.  One can't grow when stuck in soggy mud.  Happy Thanksgiving!

    23. Credence2 profile image80
      Credence2posted 11 months ago

      Gee, enough is enough!

      I agreed that Trump and his campaign had every right to verify the vote count in states where the tally for each candidate was close. But, once that is done and there are no anomalies, he is supposed to concede and dispense with all the nonsense.

      But, what do we get? We focus on Michigan and two Republican election officials refuse to certify votes in Detroit and Wayne County. Their reasons for failing to certify did not hold water under any serious analysis. Under duress, they did certify, but after speaking with Trump, now they wanted to recind that certification.

      Now? Trump has the nerve to now want Republican controlled legislators from the states in contention to assign electors after the fact (the election) and have them dismiss the fact that the popular vote went for Biden and instead have them declare Trump the recipient of their electoral votes. Republicans meanwhile sit aside with their thumbs up their butts, allowing this to continue. This is the last straw.

      After 4 years, I would have thought that Trump would have learned that he is an elected official, not an absolute monarch. But, I forget that the Right tends to be fond of strongmen and authoritarians in principle.

      So, what is it? He dissolves the Reichstag or Duma because he does not get what he wants? He will rank in history as the most loathsome of tyrants, right up there with Nero or Caligula.

      And Joe Biden is right, Trump is the WORST President that we have ever had. When I think of every Chief Executive since George Washington, Grant and Harding were dupes and much of the Presidents during the ante-bellum period were weak. I compare Trump with Andrew Johnson, another annoying and malevolent man.

      But, Trump is even worse by thinking that he can brazenly undermine the electoral process and undermine the very foundations of the democratic process. Just who does this guy think he is?

      I tell Biden to not pussy foot with Republicans, if they won't allow you to even. select the members of your Cabinet without interference, they are not to be reasoned with at any level. Be prepared to play hard ball.

      There may be hope that Susan Collins or Mitt Romney may be the breaking votes and voices of moderation allowing Biden to get on with the agenda the majority clearly voted for.

      Also, Donald Trump should have the courtesy to recognize that while he screws around trying to change the outcome of the election, he is denying President-Elect Biden access to information and facilities necessary for his successful transition this coming January 20th. Trump being reasonable and responsible? I just as well ask a grizzly bear to use the toilet.

      1. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Preach it!  I'm holding my breath until January 20, on edge wondering what awful move Trump will make next.

        1. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Well, it is Sunday and always a good time for a sermon.....

          1. gmwilliams profile image84
            gmwilliamsposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            I just came by to observe the discussion.  As we speak, I am watching THE RISE & FALL OF THE THIRD REICH.

            1. Credence2 profile image80
              Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Enjoy the show, it is a great documentary and the book is thick enough to choke a horse.

              I wonder now what Trump is going to do in his bunker?

              1. gmwilliams profile image84
                gmwilliamsposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                I read the book.   While I am at, I am going to watch the 8th chapter documentary by the late Ebba Eban.  The prologue discussed that the 20th century was to be so unlike other century; however, things like World War I, World War II, and the Holocaust happened.   I fear that the 21st century, in its infancy, will be much worse than the beginning of the 20th century.  Hope not.

                1. Credence2 profile image80
                  Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Fascinating, you and I will have to start a thread to discuss your observations.

                  I think that technological innovation made global War possible in the 20th Century in a way that was not possible before it.

                  I believe that the threat of nuclear holocaust and mutually assured destruction has made these massive global conflicts seen during the 20th century obsolete. We have not had World War III primarily for that reason.

                  Limited and (guerrilla based) brush wars conflicts seem to be what is vogue, today. It is always difficult to predict the future, but I think real world power in the 21st Century will depend more on economics rather than who has the biggest battleships.

                  1. gmwilliams profile image84
                    gmwilliamsposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    This is a very succinct observation.   Yes, world power will be dependent upon economics.    There is a widening chasm between the affluent & poor.  The middle class is gradually shrinking.    There is an increasing amount of poor people due to computerization & now covid-19.

      2. Kenna McHugh profile image89
        Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        If only Biden had not committed fraud, you would not be going though this.

        1. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

          That has yet to be proven and I say to Republicans, "s*** or get off the pot..

          I don't get the conservative attitude that it is OK for Trump to usurp and have the popular will subverted in favor of his own. Until there is Proof, he has no right to do this.

          Do Trump and conservatives think that they have some sort of divine right to prevail over others, dismissing even the appearance of a democratic process? Do they think that their votes are more important than the votes of the other side?

          You may think that Trump will be successful, I think that this episode will fail mightily and that the resulting stain will tarnish the Republican brand, in general. So, let him keep this up.

        2. crankalicious profile image94
          crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Provide the evidence! Perhaps you are really the Son of Sam. Maybe you were the shooter at Sandy Hook.

          I have just as much evidence to prove you are the Son of Sam and the Sandy Hook killer as you or Trump do to prove that Biden committed fraud.

        3. crankalicious profile image94
          crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          I should point out that Kenna, despite my claims of her being the Sandy Hook killer and the Son of Sam, has provided absolutely no evidence that she is not. Perhaps we need to send the FBI to her house to arrest her.

          She must be the Sandy Hook killer, right? My claim makes it so.

      3. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Do you see a path where he could persuade the electors from the swing states to give him their votes? I don't. --- Many states have a law that would prevent that. I know Michigan our electors must vote for the people's voice. I have added a link with the list of states that have the law in place.

        " There is no federal law that requires electors to vote as they have pledged, but 29 states and the District of Columbia have legal control over how their electors vote in the Electoral College. This means their electors are bound by state law and/or by state or party pledge to cast their vote for the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote. At the same time, this also means that there are 21 states in the union that have no requirements of, or legal control over, their electors. Therefore, despite the outcome of a state’s popular vote, the state’s electors are ultimately free to vote in whatever manner they please, including an abstention, with no legal repercussions. The states with legal control over their electors are the following 29 and D.C."  http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=967

        It would seem he is running out of steam in the courts. Although this is a wake-up call, it is more than apparent our voting process needs to be closely looked at. Trump has unearthed lots of irregularities.  It does not appear he has turned up enough new votes to turn the election. Not sure what he has in his mind?  One plus, it seems each court hears his complaints and deals with them quickly. I have a feeling this will end up in the Supreme Court. And as much as I have researched this over the past week I see nothing that will bring him a win in the SC.

        The most disturbing to me is that Trump is not letting Bidens COVID task force meet with the current task force. At this point, the pandemic is a pressing concern that deserves a smooth transition where all is shared between the teams.

        1. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Sharlee,

          Short of a cry that would wake up the dead, this approach walks a tight rope legally and would be the equivalent of a "shot over the bow" for our side, politically. In other words, they wouldn't dare.

          The Supreme Court Ruled last Summer that states can prohibit "faithless electors", in other words, the states electors are assigned based on the winner of the popular vote in the state and they can vote no other way. The state can prohibit and punish faithless electors. Why should a handful of people (electors) have the ability to overrule the will of the majority of voters? Do conservatives hate democracy? Conservatives are the ones that are so hot about maintaining the Electoral College. I supported that stand as well out of political necessity, but it is not there to operate contrary to the popular vote which is beyond the purpose for which it was designed.

          Only a tyrant would attempt to maintain control using extra-democratic means. Why would he do something like this?

          You want to see a boundary line become a chasm? Any attempt to coronate Trump in direct conflict with the democratic process will be tantamount to seismic shocks within this society, where it is questionable that we would all would survive.

          While we disagree regarding his policies and approach, he has shown everyone in the last two weeks what it is a true leader doesn't do.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            IMO -- I respect the electoral college and how it has worked thus far. I would be very very upset, mad if the electors did not vote the voice of the people. It is my hope this does not happen, and if it did I would consider Trump an illegitimate president.  I can't answer what Trump has in his mind. But, I as you am becoming very concerned due to court after court turning him away, ruling against whatever he is presenting as evidence.

            "Why would he do something like this?" I don't know, but I want answers as much as you do.

    24. Shafqat-M profile image61
      Shafqat-Mposted 11 months ago

      Trump's departure from the White House is certain but Trumpism will stay for sure as Republicans have seized control over the Senate.

    25. IslandBites profile image90
      IslandBitesposted 11 months ago

      Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, became the latest GOP senator late Sunday night to issue a statement pushing for the Trump administration to start the presidential transition process.

      "President Trump has had the opportunity to litigate his claims, and the courts have thus far found them without merit," she said. "A pressure campaign on state legislators to influence the electoral outcome is not only unprecedented but inconsistent with our democratic process. It is time to begin the full and formal transition process."

      https://www.foxnews.com/politics/more-g … it-is-time

    26. IslandBites profile image90
      IslandBitesposted 11 months ago

      Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Sunday called President Trump's legal team "a national embarrassment."

      "The president has had an opportunity to access the courts. And I said to you, you know, George, starting at 2:30 a.m. on Wednesday morning, if you've got the evidence of fraud, present it. And what's happened here is, quite frankly, the conduct of the president's legal team has been a national embarrassment."

      "Sidney Powell accusing [Georgia] Gov. Brian Kemp of a crime on television yet being unwilling to go on TV and defend and lay out the evidence that she supposedly has. This is outrageous conduct by any lawyer, and notice, George, they won't do it inside the courtroom," said Christie, a former federal prosecutor. "They allege fraud outside the courtroom, but when they go inside the courtroom, they don't plead fraud, and they don't argue fraud."

      "I've been a supporter of the president. I voted for him twice. But elections have consequences, and we cannot continue to act as if something happened here that didn't happen. You have an obligation to present the evidence. The evidence has not been presented," Christie added.

      "I said it on election night, and I hope more say it going forward because the country is what has to matter the most, as much as I'm a strong Republican and I love my party," Christie said. "It's the country that has to come first."

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Sounds like someone desperate to try the case in the court of public opinion, without any evidence from anyone but insinuation and innuendo, in an effort to keep it out of the courts.

        It's difficult for me to understand the cries of "There's no evidence"...with only a few days given to collect it all.  It's also difficult to understand the cries of "Why haven't you filed a case yet" when, again, it has been only a few days to both collect, turn into something the court can use and then go through the vagaries of the different states and file multiple lawsuits across the country.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

          I agree... The box has been opened, lots of its contents have been exposed. I for one am not willing to sweep this under a carpet.  It must play out in the courts. It appears we have many problems going on in our voter systems that need addressing at best.  And IMO if this were Biden bringing forth these concerns he would have a great many supporting his actions.

          1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
            Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            I agree. Why does the media and the Biden camp see Trump and his administration a menace? He is exposing their crimes.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Yes, he has the right to bring forward an investigation into voter fraud and irregularities. As I said if this shoe was on the other foot we would be experiencing the same thing. But, the media would be pushing the agenda that Joe was doing the right thing to point out any fraud or irregularities. I feel he should have the time to bring his complaints to the various courts and respect their opinions in the end. If he uncovers fraud the people that committed it should be prosecuted.  If he finds irregularities they should be corrected by the next election.

            2. TheShadowSpecter profile image85
              TheShadowSpecterposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              McKenna?  I've researched into this entire process further, and I have found out the following.  Even though the Supreme Court of the United States ("SCOTUS") has the power to overturn the entire election and order the Congress to hold what is called a "contingent election" or a "contested election," that directive can also come from the electoral college itself.  As a matter of fact, such a directive would be much more likely to originate from the electoral college than the SCOTUS.  The reasons that the electoral college would issue such a directive to the Congress can vary.  For example, if not all of our states can certify their election results by or before January 6, 2021 and both Joe Biden and Donald J. Trump fall below the *270 electoral votes needed to declare an official winner of the presidential election, then the electoral college would find themselves compelled to throw out the entire election and remand the matter to the Congress for a "contingent election" or a "contested election."  (*Note - the press and the media's conclusions on who won the presidential election would be completely disregarded in that event inasmuch as they have no legal role in this matter.)  Also, if the electoral college decides that voter fraud has caused too much irreparable harm to the election results across the board, they could also throw out the entire election and remand this matter to the Congress for a "contingent election" or a "contested election."  If that were to happen, then Donald J. Trump would be more likely than Joe Biden to be anointed for the presidency and serve in the Oval Office for the next four years.  Of course, the SCOTUS could still order for the entire presidential election to be thrown out and for a contingent election to be held.  If I'm not mistaken, it's called "stare decisis."  However, the SCOTUS would likely only go down that road if they determined that the electoral college was mishandling this situation in some way.

              As for any of the lawsuits that the Trump legal team has filed and the courts have dismissed, one thing that I have noticed that the mainstream media has not been reporting is whether the courts have dismissed these lawsuits with or without prejudice.  That is, if the courts have dismissed them without prejudice, it means that the Trump legal team could refile them with the courts so long as they correct any defects that appeared in their original filings.  If the courts have dismissed any of those lawsuits with prejudice, it means that the Trump legal team could appeal them all the way up to the SCOTUS.

              From what I've heard, the SCOTUS will likely address the Constitutional concerns concerning the technical minutia in these lawsuits, whereas the decision on whether to throw out the entire presidential election and hold a contingent or contested election will likely come from the electoral college in the form of a directive to the Congress in the event that the January 6, 2021 deadline to resolve this matter legally cannot be met.  I know that it all sounds complicated, but those are the checks and balances that the United States Constitution provides whenever a presidential candidate challenges the reported election results and refuses to concede.

          2. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            I wonder what happened to the task force formed by Trump to investigate election fraud? Do you know? Remember, Trump claimed Hilaary Clinton only won the popular vote because of millions of fraudulent votes.

            Whatever happened to that?

            1. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              I do remember that commission, actually for a while Pence headed it up for a while then someone else took over.  If I remember the states that the commission requested info from refused to cooperate. And little fraud was proved a handful in California about 500. The commission lasted maybe a year and then the task of voter fraud was handed to Home Land Security to continue any voter irregularities. 

              And yes, Trump did make accusations of fraud against California in the 2016 election, and never proved the widespread fraud he claimed went on.

              1. profile image0
                PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Still don't see it, hih?

                1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                  Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  I certainly see a pattern.  All I have shared is that Trump has a right to do what he is doing. Do I approve? I approve of anyone having their day in court. Do I think all this will change the election --- No. Have I made the point if the shoe was on the other foot would Biden be doing the same thing, yes I have...

                  " Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said Wednesday night that his campaign has gathered a group of 600 lawyers and more than 10,000 volunteers to fight against possible “chicanery” in the November election, as the candidate warns that President Donald Trump could interfere with the election to ensure his victory.   - https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk … c1b6be1e00

                  Joe was well prepared to forge down the same path. This seems to be what we now have to deal with our politicians have become mud dwellers. IMO we were going to see either or ...

        2. profile image0
          PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Is it difficult to understand Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani saying in court "This is not a fraud case," resulting in the judge canceling an evidentiary hearing?

          To make it clear for you, Rudy did not have any evidence of fraud. He said so in court, even though he continues to claim fraud in public.

          Who, exactly, is trying to sway public opinion away from the facts?

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Only guessing, but I think it's a pretty good one - the legal definition of "fraud" varies from state to state and is not the one commonly used by mere citizens.  Lawyers speak their own language, after all.

            For instance, Rudy claims that there were counties with as many as 3 times as many votes as there were voters.  To me that is "fraud", but I doubt it meets the legal definition.

            1. profile image0
              PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              He claims. Do you believe him? Which counties in what state? Has he even specified? It should be easy to check his claim unless, of course he has kept it very vague and not specifed. I wonder why he would do that?

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Possibly because that's what every lawyer does when going to court. Why would you demand, or even expect, a lawyer to lay out his case ahead of court?

                You know better than that.

                1. profile image0
                  PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Lol, I think I've had all the entertainment I can handle for one day.

                  Come back to me when this massive fraud is finally exposed, in court, and not from just the mouth of Rudy or Trump's Twitter feed.  Maybe I'll be over my laughing fit by then.

            2. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Thought this might interest you

              Here is an affidavit provided by Mr. Russell Ramsland, the co-owner of Allied Security Operations Group. His company specializes in detecting election fraud, cybersecurity, open-source intelligence, and global security services. Ramsland served in the Reagan administration and has worked for both NASA and MIT. This is the person Rudy was referring to when he claimed 3 there were counties where  3times as many voted as there were voters.  His affidavit goes into great detail about the  Dominion Voting System, and how it is very easy to skew votes as well as add votes, and how the Dominion System did this in Michigan in one county that he knew of and possibly 47 other counties.

              At any rate, I think his account is very revealing in regard to the  Dominion Voting System.

              Tonight's update  ---  "Attorney Sidney Powell released a statement tonight on CBS News clarifying that she “will continue to defend the foundations of this great Republic” and that she will be “filing suit soon” against Dominion and Smartmatic for allegedly electronically switching of millions of votes from President Donald Trump to Joe Biden, in what she describes as “massive fraud.” This comes after the Trump Campaign announced that she was not a member of the Trump Legal Team on November 22, 2020."


              https://nationalfile.com/kraken-update- … -campaign/

              1. IslandBites profile image90
                IslandBitesposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                You're from Michigan, right? Is it true that the list of Michigan counties in that politician affidavit are from Minnesota?

                1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                  Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes, I am from Michigan, and yes I am very aware that counties from Minnesota were listed on the document. This fast has been reported widely and fact-checked.

              2. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                All lies, don't you know?  Only Rudy can file lawsuits over the election...or so we are led to believe.  After all, if lawsuits are filed by anyone else and thrown out it can't be claimed that they were from Trump (or Rudy), and that would take away from the derision directed at them and that is not permissible.

                Please do not ever, ever post such things again: it is necessary to sway popular opinion against anything the president says.

                1. profile image0
                  PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  I would be embarrassed to post such a thing, given what has since trandpired. See my reply to Sharlee.

                2. Sharlee01 profile image84
                  Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes, I live in Michigan.  It should be no surprise that the counties listed in the document are not Michigan counties, this fact has been widely reported.

                  Mike, I was simply offering a link to an article that identified the man Rudy claimed to have an affidavit from regarding the voter fraud he was speaking of at his News conference. I thought it might interest you to read a bit about the Dominion Voting system, and read (#1. - #10.) of the affidavit where Russell Ramsland Co-owner of Allied Security Operations Group and election fraud expert included an assessment on his opinion on the problems which he felt the Dominion System caused in Antium County Michigan.   

                  And yes I wanted to share, the news that Attorney Sidney Powell released a statement tonight on CBS News clarifying that she “will continue to defend the foundations of this great Republic” and that she will be “filing suit soon” against Dominion and Smartmatic for allegedly electronically switching of millions of votes from President Donald Trump to Joe Biden, in what she describes as “massive fraud. I find this an interesting development. I did not think it would cause such a ruckus.

              3. profile image0
                PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sidney-pow … -campaign/

                Trump legal team disavows association with lawyer Sidney Powell

                The Trump campaign is disavowing its association with attorney Sidney Powell after the far-fetched Trump campaign Thursday press conference when she claimed without evidence that the deceased Hugo Chávez, among others, was responsible for rigging the election. The campaign claimed that she "is not a member of the Trump legal team," even though the president and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani had previously identified her as being on the team.

                In the days since the press conference, Powell has made additional unfounded claims to conservative networks, and her claims have even been questioned by Fox News' Tucker Carlson, after she refused to produce her evidence on the show.

                "Sidney Powell is practicing law on her own. She is not a member of the Trump Legal Team. She is also not a lawyer for the President in his personal capacity," said a statement from Giuliani and Trump campaign senior legal adviser Jenna Ellis.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                  Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Here is my comment in regard to Ms. Powell ---

                  "Tonight's update  ---  "Attorney Sidney Powell released a statement tonight on CBS News clarifying that she “will continue to defend the foundations of this great Republic” and that she will be “filing suit soon” against Dominion and Smartmatic for allegedly electronically switching of millions of votes from President Donald Trump to Joe Biden, in what she describes as “massive fraud.” This comes after the Trump Campaign announced that she was not a member of the Trump Legal Team on November 22, 2020."

                  So as you can see I realize Ms. Powell is not representing Trump.
                  In no respect have I offered any form of opinion on the report or on Ms. Powell. I did not assume myself in the position or have the need to read into why she is making statements she will not back up on interviews or even presume to guess her motives for her new claim that she is going to file a lawsuit against Dominion and Smartmatic. And yes I am well aware the Trump legal team has cut her loose.  As I said to Mike, I just find the lawsuit an interesting development.

                  1. profile image0
                    PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Interesting like a train wreck, or interesting like a well-researched documentary?

                    1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                      Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      Simply interesting to follow what's next. First to see if Powell proceeds even files a lawsuit against Dominion and if she does where it ends up. This woman seems very determined to push ahead with her accusations. And yes, her accusations seem "of the wall".  But all the less, I think it interesting.

        3. IslandBites profile image90
          IslandBitesposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Their cry is because of the ones filed and tossed out because they have no real arguments or evidence.

          But hey, you just described Trump & co "FRAUD! WE WON!!!" perfectly.

          Sounds like someone desperate to try the case in the court of public opinion, without any evidence from anyone but insinuation and innuendo.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            According to Rudy, they have filed only a small handful (2 or 3 as I recall) of suits and none were thrown out.  Other people have filed, though, and most of them were thrown out, often for lack of standing.

            Wish I knew if it was true, or if those other suits were actually coming from the legal team through proxies.

            1. IslandBites profile image90
              IslandBitesposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Well, you could search and read.

    27. abwilliams profile image64
      abwilliamsposted 11 months ago

      That's low....even for a leftist!
      There are much more than claims coming out of this 3 ring so called ELECTION DAY circus....mystery ballots were coming from all three rings and their front and back porches and garages and attics...at all times of the day and night, more votes than voters in some counties...oops they shouldn't have checked the basement! Sworn affidavits from people ready for their day in court and we don't know the half of it...it will all come out in the wash as they say!

      1. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Wow! With all that evidence, I cannot fathom how over two dozen court challenges  have been tossed or ruled against. It must be a conspiracy!

        1. abwilliams profile image64
          abwilliamsposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Wow, is it over two dozen decided and tossed or ruled against already? Who knew justice could move so quickly.

          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Well, you know, if you show up in court  and tell the  judge the case is not about election fraud (because, you know, even Rudy is smart enough not to lie to a judge), it doesn't take long.

            1. IslandBites profile image90
              IslandBitesposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Members of the Trump cult claim FRAUD!, but admit they don't know the details, dont follow the cases and have no idea which and why the cases are denied, dismissed or withdrawn.

              They repeat what Trump & Co say without questioning. No reasoning whatsoever. SMH

              1. GA Anderson profile image89
                GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Calm down IslandMom, use your bobblehead.

                GA

                1. IslandBites profile image90
                  IslandBitesposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Oh, Im so calm tonight. Enjoying the show.

              2. profile image0
                PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Yes, it gets old watching this play out over and over and over and over....

                I had hoped that once Trump was out of office we would, at the very least, be spared this nauseating drama playing out every freakin' day but I see Trump is setting himself up to continue his cult-like influence.

                I hope the media simply ignores him starting the second he is no longer president.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                  Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  "Yes, it gets old watching this play out over and over and over and over...."

                  In this incident, what do you feel you are being forced to watch play out?  I have not read the entire thread, but reading your comment it would appear you feel very disturbed by what you see in comments on this thread.

                  Please elaborate.

                  1. profile image0
                    PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Trump makes an outrageous claim, usually involving him being victimized by the media, the Democrats, his own Intel community (yadda, yadda, yada). This claim is quickly proven to be untrue. Despite this, he and his sycophants continue to amplify it, day in and day out. His supporters believe it despite no evidence or evidence to the contrary. They amplify it here and on social media, while ignoring, excusing, and rationalizing (whatever it takes) to maintain their core belief that Trump is somehow good for America despite his constant lying and refusal to take responsibility for his own actions.

                    1. wilderness profile image95
                      wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      Sounds like you're talking about the haters, not the supporters.  Or do we ignore the thousands of claims that Trump told people to drink bleach?  That he was racist for banning travel from terrorist countries that do not vet travelers?  Do we pretend the claims that he called all Mexicans rapists and murders are not made...as we read some more of the same?  Do we hide the claims that Trump never condemned white supremacy when it isn't true?

                      Yeah.  Amplify it, spin it, change it and Presto!  Another nasty comment ignoring the truth of the event.

                    2. Sharlee01 profile image84
                      Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      I am well aware of your view of Trump and anything that evolves 
                      Trump.  My conversation in regard to the current voter fraud claims. I am not ignoring them as you perceive  "Trump supporters" are doing. I am simply saying he has the right to proceed with his claims until he feels he has either won or lost his battle. I have no idea if he has proof or not. And I am not sure why you feel anyone "here is ignoring, amplifying, or making excuses" for the president's current court battles.  I have followed the thread, and I see no evidence of that.  I see people offering views. My conservative view differs greatly from your liberal views.

                      Conservatives don't abide by groupthink as many liberals do. This may be why I am willing to look at fraud claims differently than you do. With Trump's fraud claims I look at it this way --- If he proves any form of fraud or irregularities he is doing me a favor. I don't want to feel our voting system is nothing but a sham. If he proves nothing, I will feel comfortable in knowing all is on the up and up, and that our system is serving me well. Plus it's just his legal right, as it would be yours or mine.

                      It well appears you see this as Trump just being a disruptor making once again an outrageous claim. Being a bully, and a poor loser, it would appear you don't feel he should have the opportunity to pursue his claims, use his given rights.

                2. abwilliams profile image64
                  abwilliamsposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Ignores him as opposed to the media's blatant hostility shown him since before Inauguration Day?

                  1. profile image0
                    PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Yeah, well, I guess if you spend more time lying and bullying on Twitter and watching Fox and Friends than you do governing, you reap what you sow.

                    1. abwilliams profile image64
                      abwilliamsposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      What did he lie about on Twitter? Are you calling him standing up for himself when no one else will...bullying?
                      In which way did he hurt you/stop you/hold you back... over the past four years?
                      What has he ever done to cause such hate from you, from the left, from career politicians (including RINO's)?
                      What is so intriguing to you about overextended, overindulgent Government?
                      What is wrong with seeing to it that "we the people" aren't left far behind, by people who live to control, gain power, use people to get what they want?
                      Trump understands that limited Government is in the best interest of the people....career politicians don't give a damn about you or me, why do you think they do?
                      Why has there been so much objection to Trump's making everything about the people? Why was it a problem for him to make promises and then keep them?
                      Why does Barack Obama get praised for insulting America, while Trump gets drug over the coals for loving America?
                      I've been asking these questions for years, never have gotten any straight answers...just talking points.

                3. GA Anderson profile image89
                  GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Not much hope of that. CNN will collapse without Trump. They will be following his every post-president move. ;-)

                  GA

                  1. abwilliams profile image64
                    abwilliamsposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    I can see it now GA, he'll be playing golf on a Trump course...of course, he'll look up at a big fluffy cloud and CNN will have their breaking news. Does he think God will fix his game? Not even God can fix DT! What is he looking at, is he seeing things? A UFO perhaps? What is he wearing? What color is that? Did he dress himself from the hamper? Must be nice to be able to play golf.....

                    You're right, its all they have.

                    1. GA Anderson profile image89
                      GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      Your thought sounds like CNN's Lemon or Trapper. I was thinking more in the vein of chronicling his Secret Service expenses at a business he owns just so he could play golf.

                      GA

                  2. profile image0
                    PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    CNN needs help, but it is not help in the form of more  Trump coverage.

                    1. GA Anderson profile image89
                      GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      I think you are right about that. I think their coverage of Pres. Trump is what hurt them. But they didn't see it then, and their viewer base was so small that they had to keep it up or lose even those hardcore viewers.

                      I am still betting they will continue their anti-Trump, or at the least, anti-Republican, coverage.

                      GA

    28. abwilliams profile image64
      abwilliamsposted 11 months ago

      Not just once but over two dozen times....crazy!

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        And in multiple courts in multiple states, no less!

    29. IslandBites profile image90
      IslandBitesposted 11 months ago

      Maybe Trump was right. FRAUD!, maybe? Ha!

      FRAUD, maybe?

    30. abwilliams profile image64
      abwilliamsposted 11 months ago

      You have no answers. Take care.

    31. emge profile image78
      emgeposted 11 months ago

      Well, things aren't looking too rosy for Donald Trump, and looks like that he's accepted that Biden will enter the White House.

      1. TheShadowSpecter profile image85
        TheShadowSpecterposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Trump has not conceded the presidency.

        1. crankalicious profile image94
          crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          And probably won't to keep up the facade that he was the victor. Actually, his concession isn't relevant nor is his reality.

          1. TheShadowSpecter profile image85
            TheShadowSpecterposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            According to a video that Van Jones posted recently on YouTube, the concession speech is a norm that gives the green light for all other procedures to move ahead in the transfer-of-power; even though the Biden transition team could still take it upon themselves to do so.  In spite of the concession speech's importance as a tradition, the United States Electoral College would have the ultimate say-so in either concluding who won the presidential election or throwing it out altogether, unless, of course, the Supreme Court of the United States runs interference in some way.  The United States Electoral College has a deadline of January 6, 2021 either to declare a winner or to throw out the election.  I mean no disrespect, crankilicious, but so very much can happen between now and then.  I find it interesting that nobody in the news media seems to be talking about the Independent presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen.

    32. crankalicious profile image94
      crankaliciousposted 11 months ago

      Well, here's a Trump tweet from yesterday:

      “ ‘In Wisconsin, somebody has to be indefinitely confined in order to vote absentee. In the past there were 20,000 people. This past election there were 120,000...and Republicans were locked out of the vote counting process.’ @VicToensing @newsmax”
      — President Trump, in a tweet, Nov. 24, 2020

      As usual, all lies.

      1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
        Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Just because you say its lies doesn't mean its lies.

        1. IslandBites profile image90
          IslandBitesposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          That is true. But what if Wisconsin law says so?

          Who can Request an Absentee Ballot?

          Any qualified elector (U.S. citizen, 18 years of age, who has resided in the district in which he or she intends to vote for at least 28 days) who registers to vote is eligible to request an absentee ballot.  Under Wisconsin law, voters do not need a reason or excuse, such as being out of town on Election Day, to vote absentee.  Any voter who prefers to vote by absentee ballot may request one.  You have several options for requesting an absentee ballot and casting your vote.

          https://elections.wi.gov/voters/absentee

        2. crankalicious profile image94
          crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Every single part of it is a lie, but instead of doing the research, you just eat it up? That is concerning. The fact you do not recognize these as lies or care one iota that the President is tweeting this stuff out, hoping to confuse and anger people. It's not me who is saying it's a lie. It's every person with the facts on earth who says it's a lie. Here are some examples for you:

          "In Wisconsin, somebody has to be indefinitely confined in order to vote absentee."

          That statement is factually untrue. Any registered voter in Wisconsin can request an absentee ballot. Why would anyone believe the lie when the truth is easily found? Stupidity? Gullibility? Just don't care about the truth?

          “In the past there were 20,000 people. This past election there were 120,000.”

          Again, this is contrary to factual information and Wisconsin's data.

          "Republicans were locked out of the vote counting process."

          A complete lie. Republican observers were allowed to watch everywhere and this has been proven in court where Republican lawyers have had to admit it's not true. Local election officials have reported, in fact, that Trump observers have been intentionally trying to slow everything down by objecting to every ballot.

          Why do you believe the lies? And are you the Sandy Hook killer? You still haven't proved that you aren't.

          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            She likes to tell everyone else to do their research but, as far as I can tell, her research consists of automatically believing Trump and his cronies. And Newsmax, of course.

    33. crankalicious profile image94
      crankaliciousposted 11 months ago

      The election is over. Trump's legal objections have run their course. He should concede for decorum's sake, but he doesn't have to. A concession is not necessary nor required by law.

    34. Kenna McHugh profile image89
      Kenna McHughposted 11 months ago

      I am very excited about the Pennsylvania hearing!

    35. IslandBites profile image90
      IslandBitesposted 11 months ago

      Federal appeals court dismisses Trump campaign lawsuit over Pennsylvania voting procedures

      Despite Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani arguing to a lower court that widespread voter fraud occurred in a state where President-elect Joe Biden won by over 80,000 votes, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said “the campaign’s claims have no merit.”

      “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” Judge Stephanos Bibas, a former law school professor, wrote in his ruling.

      Third Circuit Opinion

      1. crankalicious profile image94
        crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Funny how the "law and order" President is anything but. Plus, he seems to hate Democracy. And if you hate Democracy, you hate America.

        1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
          Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Define democracy?

          1. crankalicious profile image94
            crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            I'm sure you can use a computer. The law has spoken on Trump's fraud claim. Where's the order?

            1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
              Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              All as the question again, what is your definition of democracy?

              1. crankalicious profile image94
                crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                You'll need to prove you're not the Sandy Hook killer first, since that accusation has as much validity as Trump's voting fraud claims.

                1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
                  Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  I look forward to a straight answer.

                  1. crankalicious profile image94
                    crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    I've given you the same straight answer you're getting from President Trump. Why do you expect more from some a-hole on Hubpages?

                    I hate to break it to you, sweet cheeks, but I've presented the same amount of evidence in court about you being the Sandy Hook killer as President Trump has presented in court about election fraud.

    36. profile image0
      PrettyPantherposted 11 months ago

      Trump is now saying the DOJ and FBI may have been involved in election fraud, with no evidence, of course.  It won't be.long until I see it on social media because his supporters will believe it and amplify it.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Sounds much like the claim he colluded with Putin to throw the election.  Or that he sexually abused dozens of women.  Or that he did whatever the Democrats impeached for.  Or was racist for banning travel from terrorist supporting countries, or from China.  Or for wanting to stop illegal entry along the Mexican border.  Or that Trump is mentally ill.  The list just goes on and on and on of unsupported claims about Trump.

        Claims are a dime a dozen, and it doesn't matter if it's Trump making them or liberals.  The only real difference is that liberals continue their claims even after no evidence can be found.

        1. profile image0
          PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Some claims have enough evidence to warrant an investigation. I wonder if this claim does? Or, is Trump just making $hit up again?

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            He's definitely makiing it all up, just as he did when he claimed the Obama administration was spying on his candidacy and no one believed him.  At least they didn't until it was proven true...

            As far as "enough" evidence - It's a good thing liberals aren't wanting those investigations.  We'd be tied up in "investigating" for decades, evidence or not.  Recent history makes that very clear!

            My personal prediction is that there will be no court cases resulting in a changed election, even in a single state.  However...at the same time there will be enough brought to light that there will be some pretty big changes to the voting procedures in many states, particularly so in the mass mailing type of "mail in ballots".  (That will stretch to the normal absentee ballots as well.)

            If Rudy's claims have any truth to them (and I'm sure they do) there are enough "inconsistencies" to make people sit up and say "Wait a minute here!" even if the ballot counting was quite legal everywhere.  This year was very unique in that respect and the large majority of states were not equipped, or prepared from a planning standpoint, to handle the change.

            1. profile image0
              PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Lol, and Iraq had WMDs. I have noticed your standards vary widely to suit your ideology.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                *shrug*  When the FBI has wiretapped campaign headquarters it is pretty open and shut to me.  What their reasons were for doing so, whether it was legal or not - these things don't matter to the question of whether it happened or not.  Even their claim that no attention was paid to campaign discussion is relevant.

                1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
                  Kenna McHughposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  The injustice is unbelievable.

                2. crankalicious profile image94
                  crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  The FBI has an obligation to the American people for the safety of this country to monitor people when they are communicating with known Russian intelligence officers who want to do us harm.

                  Had the Trump campaign been communicating with Islamic terrorists, would you have said the FBI should ignore it?

                  Your comments are proof that if you repeat a lie long enough it becomes truth.

                  Donald Trump spent much of his pre-Presidency attacking President Obama, without evidence, for not being born in the U.S. This was overt racism. That's why many things he did as President were criticized for being racist. That's what happen when you do blatantly racist things. It makes you a racist.

                  When you make baseless attacks against the first black President for being not American without proof, you are a racist and a scumbag. This is why many people didn't give Trump a chance. He's scum. He blew the dog whistle for white America well before he was President and continued during his presidency. Be afraid of everything non-white. Question everyone who is not white - Presidents, immigrants, judges, football players - whoever. If they're not white, they're not American. They're not real Americans.

                  Some people have a problem with such behavior and some people do not.

                  What's worse is that he's actively encouraging people to die right now - to behave in a way that's contrary to all scientific evidence. A lot of people just spent their last Thanksgiving with their loved ones because they won't be around next Thanksgiving because they'll die from COVID. And there was President Trump with a pom-pom telling them to do it.

                  He's also actively insisting that America is not a democracy, that we don't have fair and free elections. That's despite the fact that Republicans did well in many local elections, gaining on the Democrats. Wonder how that happened. The way it happened is that Republicans voted against Trump in numbers significant enough to remove him from office.

                  But no, we're not a democracy any longer, according to Trump. And people believe him. And it's all because he's a sore loser. This is what happens to many rich people who've been handed everything and never had to work very hard because daddy was always there to save them or their trust fund was there to bail them out. When they actually lose at something, they just can't believe it's true because they don't have the experience. (and ironically, not so different from career politicians who insulate themself from defeat systematically)

                  The rich very rarely lose in our country. The ultra-rich almost never lose. They never don't have money. They never get convicted of crimes because their lawyers get them out of it. They pal around with people like Jeffrey Epstein and nobody can do a thing about it.

                  Now Trump is finally lost and his answer is to set fire to everything. He'd even destroy the very country that made him who he is. He tries to motivate his followers with high-risk behavior that will kill many of them, all in the name of self-preservation.

                  1. profile image0
                    PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    You laid it out perfectly but I doubt it will have any effect. His followers have chosen a path and don't seem to care how dark, narrow or treacherous it becomes. For many, there is no turning back.

                    1. wilderness profile image95
                      wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      And the haters, as always, will deform reality with such things as claiming Trump was NOT under surveillance because it was being done for a good reason.

                  2. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    "The FBI has an obligation to the American people for the safety of this country to monitor people when they are communicating with known Russian intelligence officers who want to do us harm."

                    Are you saying they were NOT surveilling him?  Or that because that's their job it didn't happen?  Confusion here, for I made it extremely plain that the reason for surveillance does not change that it happened: no matter how good a reason it does not remove the FACT that he was under surveillance.  Nor can it change the FACT that no one believed him, even as it was going on.

                    And then you switch to massive exaggeration and spin, with "Trump encourages people to die!"  You and I both know he does no such thing, even as he encourages risky behavior.

                    That's followed by Trump saying we are not a democracy, even as he uses the law to see if elections were fair.  A rather silly statement, then, isn't it?  When it come to denying democracy it seems that the liberals such as yourself are the ones denying democracy by demanding that elections NOT be overseen, NOT be checked for bias, NOT be examined to ensure fairness.  Democracy be damned: liberals "won" and don't want any possibility of finding out it was through cheating.

                    1. crankalicious profile image94
                      crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                      They kept tabs on the guys who were communicating with Russian intelligence agents, as you would want them to since Russian intelligence agents were trying to influence the election.

                      When you conspire with our enemies and people who wish to do us harm, then they FBI is obligated to listen in.

                      And yes, Trump is recommending behavior that is going to get people killed instead of following the science and helping to encourage Americans to stay safe. He's still pushing back against masks. He's provided absolutely zero support or guidance as far as helping to encourage safe practices to stop the spread of COVID.

                      The accusation that Trump claimed he was being spied on and nobody believed him is a complete lark. Everyone knew from the beginning that the FBI was investigating him. Trump has turned it into something bigger - the BIGGEST scandal ever.

                      Except his campaign was working with Russia to dig up dirt on his opponent.

                      Can you answer the question? Is working with Russian Intelligence worthy of FBI action? Is working with Islamic terrorists worthy of FBI action?

                3. TheShadowSpecter profile image85
                  TheShadowSpecterposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Wilderness?  The main concern about that whole ordeal was that FBI higher-ups lied to the FISA court to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.  After the FISA court found out that they had done so, the bench of the FISA court was furious about it.  All of this FBI malfeasance was exposed at the Crossfire Hurricane hearing on Capitol Hill.  Not only did Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Lindsey Graham put these FBI higher-ups in the hot seat while questioning them, but even Senator Dianne Feinstein was disgusted with these FBI higher-ups; and she's a Democrat.  There is a multitude of clips of this same hearing on YouTube.

                  I found out recently that Carter Page, who was a former aide in the Trump presidential campaign, filed a 75 million dollar lawsuit against the FBI, former FBI Director James Comey and the United States Department of Justice.  The outcome of this same lawsuit should be interesting when we consider that the FBI has gotten away with malfeasance for years.  It is beyond my comprehension why FBI higher-ups never seem to get prosecuted for breaking the law in this manner and sentenced accordingly.

      2. IslandBites profile image90
        IslandBitesposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        With the latest news about the pardons bribery investigation, now we know why he's trying to discredit his own DOJ and FBI.

    37. Kathleen Cochran profile image81
      Kathleen Cochranposted 11 months ago

      Secretary Clinton got three million more votes than Trump but conceded and behaved admirably - even attending the inaugeration. The only "riots" were thousands of women marching peacefully the day after. Show some class. Move on.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Your last statement is actually silly.  Move on, did you move on after Nov 2016? Seems a bit hypocritical.  Why would you assume Republicans would move on? Mike is right we had very good examples to teach us how not to move on.  LOL

        And in regard to Hillary Clinton, she blamed everyone that breathed for her loss. Admirable?

        1. crankalicious profile image94
          crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          You got those examples from how Republicans treated Obama.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

            It is also apparent the Republicans were not good losers when Obama won. However, it never reached the vitreal of the last four years. There is nothing to compare to what was done by the media in these past four years.

            1. profile image0
              PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              There is nothing to compare to the lying, bullying, petty behavior; self-enriching money grabs; corrupt cronyism; inhumane policies toward innocent children; and death and illness  due to incompetence and negligence of this administration, either.

              Gee, I wonder if the media response is related to all that?

              1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                "SHARLEE01 WROTE:
                It is also apparent the Republicans were not good losers when Obama won. However, it never reached the vitreal of the last four years. There is nothing to compare to what was done by the media in these past four years."

                You jumped into a conversation that you may be taking out of context. My comment was to point out that yes, the Republicans in Washington were not good losers, and did give Obama a very hard time, and blocked much of what he wanted to accomplish.  But I also felt there have never been such media vitreal committed against a president. 

                Your feelings about Trump's four years is your opinion.  It's clear our opinions differ, as well as how we came about our personal opinions.

                1. profile image0
                  PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  I was responding to your assertion that  there has never been such media vitreol committed against a president.

                  There has never been a president as deviant as Trump. The media scrutiny he received was brought on by his own behavior and policies and fully justifird. You act like a lying bully with no honor, you get treated like one.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    There is a difference, don't you think, between "scrutiny" and "attack"?  Trump has been flat out attacked by media since before he took office.

                    As far as "bringing it on himself", he did do that.  He brought it on himself with the capital of Israel...but didn't get much notice.  He brought it on by attempting to control the invasion on the southern border...and was chastised for his efforts.  He brought it on himself by making fairer trade treaties...and was either ignored or demonized.  The list is long how he "brought media attention" to himself - while media ignored it and attacked with spin, lies and half stories instead.

            2. crankalicious profile image94
              crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              Oh, sure. Advocating for Obama's lynching just doesn't compare. In addition, we had some racist idiots insisting that Obama was born in a foreign country and thus, wasn't even qualified to be President.

              1. profile image0
                PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                Lol, one of those idiots was elected president, remember? Trump sent his legal team to Hawaii to unearth the truth about the Muslim Kenyan Socialist terrorist!

                No matter how much time passes, I am still shocked that a thinking person would vote for that man. Some of them twice! Ugh!

              2. Sharlee01 profile image84
                Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                Let me repeat, I was referring to the Washington Government officials. I, not once heard or read any Republican in the office calling to hang Obama. Please supply me a reference to any republican representative that holds an office or held the office ever made such a statement.

                I stand by my statement in regard to the bias media.

    38. IslandBites profile image90
      IslandBitesposted 11 months ago

      Attorney General William Barr said Tuesday that the Justice Department has not uncovered evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, despite claims by President Trump and his campaign’s legal team.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Setting aside the definition of "widespread", did Barr look into any of the more egregious claims Rudy made, or did he look at only stuff he knew was OK? 

        It would mean a lot more (a LOT more) had he investigated some of Rudy's claims.  When he just says he didn't find anything, without listing what he looked at, not so much.

        1. IslandBites profile image90
          IslandBitesposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          I guess  Barr is now a Trump hater and part of the deep state, right?

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Is it possible for Trump Haters to actually respond to what is written rather than veering off into still another TRUMP BAD MAN rant?

            Do you know what his "investigation" consisted of and what it looked at?  Was it anything Rudy G has complained about?  I watched several people testify that they watched fraud occurring, or that they, as poll watchers, were denied the ability to do their job.  That they witnessed a great many ballots fed into the machines as many as 8 times.  Was anything like that checked on?  Did he interview any of those witnesses?

            There is also the wee problem that, according to the news, Barr said he hadn't seen sufficient fraud to change the election - not that he hadn't seen "widespread fraud" as you claimed.  That raises the question of does he need to expand his search to find the rest of the iceberg he saw above the waves.

            Try and stay on topic: if you don't know, then say so!  Certainly I don't know what Barr checked - do you?

            1. IslandBites profile image90
              IslandBitesposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              You never know, even though you always have an opinion. Why ask me, maybe try reading.

              Here, so is not that hard for you.

              https://apnews.com/article/election-202 … 61a6c7f49d

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                Perhaps you should read it yourself.  Some quotes from your link:

                "Attorney General William Barr declared Tuesday the U.S. Justice Department has uncovered no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 election."  <Was there a reason that you left out that "change the election" bit?  Because it was enough to warrant further investigation, investigation that you don't want to happen?>

                "Rudy Giuliani and his political campaign issued a scathing statement claiming that, “with all due respect to the Attorney General, there hasn’t been any semblance” of an investigation into the president’s complaints."  <So one shyster says another shyster isn't doing his job...or is that something you approve of?>

                "However, Barr said earlier that people were confusing the use of the federal criminal justice system with allegations that should be made in civil lawsuits. He said a remedy for many complaints would be a top-down audit by state or local officials, not the U.S. Justice Department."  <In other words, "Not my problem; file a civil suit" in the state concerned.>

                So...tell me again which of the specific actions Rudy complained about, such as reading ballots more than once, changing the mail date on ballots, more votes than registered voters, preventing checking by poll checkers, etc. that Barr has conducted an in depth investigation on and found no significant fraud.  Certainly your link doesn't answer the question, except to say that he isn't going to look at some of it because it isn't a federal crime.  Not a crime to count ballots multiple times, I guess, except under possible state law.  Which is why I haven't made my own mind up, although yours was pretty obviously made up before there was ANY specific complaint made.  You're trying to say that Barr found no federal crime, while Barr says it's a state law and therefore he isn't interested, and that means no fraud.  Doesn't work, at least not for me.

                1. crankalicious profile image94
                  crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  And now we have General Flynn, recently pardoned, encouraging Trump to declare martial law to overturn the election.

                  Real Americans, patriots, have to step up and start denouncing this stuff. It's dangerous. Trump is dangerous. He's doing real damage and further proving what kind of treasonous, cowardly, disgusting human being he is.

    39. abwilliams profile image64
      abwilliamsposted 10 months ago

      I thought this story was determined to be bogus!?
      Whatever the case (bogus or not) I am sure this particular story will have staying power, it must take up space and deflect from much more serious issues. That's how it is done.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Yes. they need something to report, like the riveting story about Biden and his pup...
        We have whistleblowers on election irregularities coming out with their allegations, and the media are drooling over Biden is bringing pets to the White House. Pretty good feed I would say.

        1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
          Kenna McHughposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          There is election fraud. It is so obvious.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            I generally catch the CBS news in the evening.  Every evening, without fail, there is more talk of Trumps false claims of fraud.  CBS hasn't checked the claim, hasn't investigated anything at all...but somehow knows every claim made is false. 

            Fraud doesn't appear "obvious" to CBS...but then neither would an elephant in the room if they didn't want to see it.

          2. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

            I agree, I have watched every hearing and listened to any and all whistleblowers and they have firsthand accounts of fraud.  I am sick of anyone that is commenting without knowing the facts. because the media has not in any respect reported the truth about what is going on.

    40. abwilliams profile image64
      abwilliamsposted 10 months ago

      I wonder how this one will be explained away....

      https://nationalfile.com/evidence-video … yone-home/

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        It becomes more and more difficult for me to predict that massive fraud will not be found.  Just as it becomes more and more difficult to understand how anyone can stand up and declare "There is no fraud!" without ever explaining just how such things as seen in your link happened.

        We have heard "Where is the evidence?" for some weeks now, well, "Where is the explanation for apparently fraudulent activity?".

        1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
          Kenna McHughposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Trump did a 45 minute speech explaining the fraud. It's on YouTube. It answers all of the issues of voter fraud. But, if you are, as the French say, "idee fixe", you will not see the truth.

        2. abwilliams profile image64
          abwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Cred has spoken, it's not evidence, there is no fraud... it's "right wing propaganda".
          Gosh, I'd hate for a Lefty to be a witness in my defense or worse...a juror, if I am ever before the court!

      2. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

        This is just the tip of the iceberg. This kind of fraud is unacceptable. Thank God Trump is willing to push forward and not just walk away to the nice life he could be leading. This is the biggest most embarrassing ploys the Dems have tried to pull. The buck must stop here.  They need slapping back big time. If I sound angry, you bet I am...

        1. abwilliams profile image64
          abwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          I haven't been able to watch all of the hearings or see all of the evidence presented, but just the few things that I am aware is enough to raise questions about the uprightness of election night.
          Why everyone isn't questioning, says a lot about how far we have strayed.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

            The word hypocrisy comes to mind in the case of those that choose to look the other way. I am very angry about this kind of widespread fraud.

            1. crankalicious profile image94
              crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              Once again, where's your evidence? Conjecture is not evidence. Theory is not evidence. Where's your actual evidence? One person "seeing something" is not evidence. Remember, this fraud is widespread. There would be thousands of witnesses. Courts have evidentiary standards that Trump's people aren't coming close to meeting. One drunk woman claiming voting tabulations were off is not evidence.

              If I claim you are a pedophile, is that, by itself, enough to warrant an investigation? If I claim you murdered somebody, is that, by itself, enough to warrant going into your house? Of course not. I would need to provide evidence.

              The claim of fraud was made before there was any evidence or proof. None was provided. This has been the classic game of making a claim about something and THEN going to find the evidence. It's the worst kind of intellectual endeavor.

              Here's some proof you're wrong:

              https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-camp … 1607135636

              https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/11/ … l-endgame/

              https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … it-defeats

              https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-e … s-n1248289

              1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                In no way am I trying to be rude. However, I have mentioned several times that I watched the whistleblowers give their complete representations of what they saw firsthand, and were involved in. Many having saved ballot numbers in the form of lists of ballots they saw firsthand fraud. Many witnessed filling in of birthdates and other information on ballots. This is a fraud in itself self and the worker should be charged accordingly. One would need to go to the source (these citizens ) to ascertain the truth. Internet articles have not in any respect covered these brave people's alligations, and won't.  As they don't give complete explanations of judges' rulings.

                We just are not coming from the same place of being informed. I watched the entire hearings all of them... You Googled... Just does not compare in content or context.

                1. TheShadowSpecter profile image85
                  TheShadowSpecterposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Sky News Australia gives a lot of good coverage of these events.  I've been watching their news reports on YouTube about the situation with our election here in the United States.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                    Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    Yes me too... I really like to see the coverage from Australia, very straight forward. Such a difference when compared to our own.

                2. crankalicious profile image94
                  crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Among them, a drunk woman and a registered sex offender from New Jersey.

                  Your burden of proof is very low.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                    Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    There are over 250 whistleblowers.  I find it remarkable you can insult mere strangers, knowing nothing about them other than what far-left internet sites have dug up.  Did you actually watch any of the hearings and listen in total to their accounts of fraud?  Curious how you can dismiss other American's accounts so easily.   You are aware Biden has had a woman step up with her allegation he forcibly raped her?

                    1. crankalicious profile image94
                      crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                      What I'm saying is that when Rudy offers up a registered sex offender and a drunk as star witnesses, any reasonably intelligent person should question what the hell is going on.

                      https://www.npr.org/2020/10/27/92821006 … ation-suit

              2. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                "One person "seeing something" is not evidence."

                What was the "evidence" that started the three years of Russia investigation again?  One fake report of wrongdoing, wasn't it?

                And now multiple instances of eyewitness reports is insufficient to investigate.  Why is that?

                1. crankalicious profile image94
                  crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Sorry, you keep pushing the same lie. The evidence were meetings between Trump campaign officials and Russian intelligence officers. It's absolutely shocking that you believe the FBI investigating these meetings was a more serious offense than the meetings themselves.

                  And, of course, eyewitness accounts are enough to investigate. Unfortunately, when these eyewitnesses have ended up in court, their stories have changed or what they've supposedly seen doesn't stand up as evidence. But, by all means, if these people have witness provable massive fraud, that should be investigated thoroughly.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    No it wasn't.  Go back earlier.

                    As usual, you're putting words in my mouth, for I NEVER said the FBI investigating meetings with Russian intelligence was wrong.  What I SAID was that the "evidence" to support the investigation was far, far less than has been presented in election fraud, and that is absolutely true.

                    Do you really expect an eyewitness to a crime to have collected evidence to "prove" it in a court of law, or to your satisfaction?  That is the job of the cops, as you well know.

                    1. crankalicious profile image94
                      crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                      I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm drawing a conclusion from your statements.

                      And if you look at the evidence, I completely disagree with what you are saying. There was considerable evidence given meetings between Trump campaign officials and Russian intelligence officers and the knowledge the FBI had that Putin ordered the DNC to be hacked.

                      I haven't seen a single witness with any credible evidence about election fraud. I did watch Giuliani's drunk witness in Michigan. Was that the best he could do? Seriously? That's what he brought?

                      But if you know of other "witnesses", I'd certainly be interested. It's just their stories have been breaking down in court.

      3. GA Anderson profile image89
        GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Hmm. . .  The Georgia Board of Elections spokesman said those were typical ballot containers. The lawyer that narrated the video said they were suitcases. I wonder who is right?

        Either way, the narrated circumstances seem fishy. If they were suitcases the case of fraud seems strong. If they were typical ballot containers, then what's up with the claim counting was done for the night—which precipitated a clearing of the room, except for four ballot-counting workers.

        I don't have enough facts to form an opinion, other than that it smells fishy.

        GA

        1. TheShadowSpecter profile image85
          TheShadowSpecterposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Yeah, I think that there's going to be a contingent presidential election in January.  This past November election reeks with irreparable harm.

        2. IslandBites profile image90
          IslandBitesposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Gabriel Sterling

          The 90 second video of election workers at State Farm arena, purporting to show fraud was watched in its entirety (hours) by
          @GaSecofState investigators. Shows normal ballot processing. Here is the fact check on it.
          Fact Check: Video From Georgia Does NOT Show Suitcases Filled With Ballots Suspiciously Pulled From Under A Table; Poll Watchers Were NOT Told To Leave

          Justin Gray

          I just spent 2 hours going through State Farm surveillance video with
          @GabrielSterling & state investigators. We watched chain of custody of the table & ballot boxes in question - from 8am until midnight. The boxes were packed & sealed with observers in room - nothing improper

          Gabriel Sterling

          You can watch the @wsbtv report to show that the President’s team is intentionally misleading the public about what happened at State Farm Arena on election night. They had the whole video too and ignored the truth.

          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            I am disheartened by the number of people falling for the president's calculated and relentless disinformation campaign to discredit our elections. I am disheartened by the GOP politicians who are actively participating in spreading the propaganda and the ones who remain silent.

            BUT, I value and respect the many state officials of both parties who steadfastly and meticulously  investigate and answer each allegation

            If this election had been close, it is possible the propaganda campaign would succeed, and that is a very scary thought.

          2. GA Anderson profile image89
            GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Thanks for the link. If "fishy" has any place in the discussion, then all of the election board's statements must be discounted. I don't see enough evidence to do that.

            GA

        3. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

          This video is interesting, and the surrounding circumstances seem odd --- all being asked to leave, no poll watchers on-site is illegal in itself. But I agree we need to see more facts. Thought you might find this interesting, the Trump representatives will be allowed to investigate the voter machines in Maricopa. Ariz. Rudy's going around the courts with these legislative hearings may be the only way to solve many questions. Hopefully, other states will step up and let their machines be evaluated for fraud. This could speed up finding facts or dispelling the facts that Trump's team is alleging. I do think it very important the allegations be thoroughly looked at quickly.

          Friday, December 4, 2020
          FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
          Legislative Leaders call for audit of Maricopa
          County election software and equipment

          https://www.azleg.gov/press/house/54LEG … NAUDIT.pdf

          1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
            Kenna McHughposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            There's nothing wrong with inspecting an area.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

              I so agree --- I want all allegations investigated. This makes me very angry, and I know mistrust our voting system altogether.

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Apparently Jody Hice (Georgia representative) is saying the machine(s) are in the hands of Trump's team.  Maricopa county vehemently denies this.

            https://www.rightjournalism.com/county- … -to-biden/

            Who do we believe?  A politician with ties to the losing party or county politicians wanting to keep their job?

            1. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

              Good question, I hope to see them all do the right thing let the Trump team evaluate the Dominion machines they feel are involved. If nothing to hide there should be no problem. If they refuse, I would be one that will suspect they are hiding something, and hopefully, the folks of Arizona will demand these machines be evaluated.

            2. Kenna McHugh profile image89
              Kenna McHughposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              The person who wants the truth for real.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                Its been widely supported here in Michigan that the Trump team would have access to Dominion machines in one of our counties. One of Trump's team won a case Friday to look at machines due to his claims related to the marijuana proposal on the ballot. The team came in through a backdoor so to say. But it well appears that the machines will be investigated here in Michigan.

                1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
                  Kenna McHughposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes! Why should America not want that to happen?

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                    Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    This voting system needs to be investigated manually in every state where it appears large vote dumps may have been made.  It is the right thing to do, and we the people deserve this investigation to assure confidence in our voting system from here on.  Time to speak up, this is very serious, and we can't accept this kind of corruption. Especially when it would be very easy to have a look at these machines and investigate these whistleblower's claims of fraud. Many of these WB wrote down-ballot numbers where they felt fraud occurred...Their information is documented and can easily be pulled up and investigate.

                    It disgusts me to see these citizens' allegations not only disregarded by media but in some cases, their reputations smeared by media, and their herd of followers that grab up any feed offered up to them. YUCK

                    1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
                      Kenna McHughposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                      If one simple steps back and looks at this situation, one can not help but see the need to investigate. Who will it hurt? Not the Americans.

    41. Credence2 profile image80
      Credence2posted 10 months ago

      National File? Never heard of it, I would designate it as File 13, just another recepticle for right wing propaganda

      1. abwilliams profile image64
        abwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Designate as you wish...the video doesn't lie nor propagate!

        1. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Alright, AB,

          I will wait for the Republican governor of Georgia as well as the professed Republican election manager to tell me something is awry before I believe the musings of any right wing oriented website without corroboration from less biased sources.

          1. abwilliams profile image64
            abwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Good plan/good practice to wait...rather than join in with all of the conspiracy theorists. Is that a newfound practice of yours, found right after election night?

            1. abwilliams profile image64
              abwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this
              1. crankalicious profile image94
                crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                Parler is literally a site where right-wingers go to post false information because they don't like it when Facebook and Twitter label their posts when they are obviously lies. Fascism is alive and well on Parler.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Sounds like CNN - isn't that where left-wingers go to get their lies on the air?

                  1. abwilliams profile image64
                    abwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    LOL you stole my thunder...again! Great minds and all that. wink

                    1. crankalicious profile image94
                      crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                      I heard Parler was secretly created by AOC to keep track of right-wingers so we'd have a list of them when the time comes to get rid of them. If you provided any personal information to that site, I'd be worried. That's how they get you. That, and the vaccine. Once you take the vaccines, the government will know where you are at all times.

      2. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Of course you would; that is tried and true tactic from the far left.  Hide what you don't want to see and pretend it isn't there.

    42. abwilliams profile image64
      abwilliamsposted 10 months ago

      Good plan, wait for it.

    43. Dennis AuBuchon profile image71
      Dennis AuBuchonposted 10 months ago

      Thanks for providing this information.  You bring up an interesting point.  With regards to Parler based on the information I wil need to check it out

    44. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 10 months ago

      Yes, I for one have lost trust in our voting system due to all the allegations of irregularities and yes, fraud. I am at this point seeing a problem that will snowball into one party fixing the vote each and every time.  I will admit I have lost trust in Government to get to the bottom of this. This is a protest worthy problem. We either speak up or live with this kind of banana republic tactic.

      1. Kenna McHugh profile image89
        Kenna McHughposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Absolutely! We need to be vigilant for our freedoms and the Constitution.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

          We will see it stamped under the feet of some that hope to destroy it If we don't start demanding justice and transparency.

          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Can you explain how justice and transparency have not already been served through this process? Has anyone been denied their day in court? Has anyone been not allowed to speak at a hearing or hold a press conference or write an opinion piece or post on social media?

            Why do you need to demand justice and transparency, unless you believe they have somehow been denied? If so, how?