Right out of Mike Pompeo's mouth:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … on-vpx.cnn
What do you think he means?
Should he be making such statements without presenting clear evidence of massive voter fraud?
Oh, Crank, they've all got big mouths and tiny brains. No, they should shut up because the people have spoken and they don't have the chance of a snowball in hell. I'm not going to waste my time looking up sources to back my statement. The percentages already presented by the media back it up.
We are a democratic republic under a Constitution, and to give in to a vocal minority is exactly how Hitler came into power. See any parallels here?
Kylie Atwood said it right when she said that diplomats all over the world are concerned with what is going on in the U.S. How can we call for honest elections in other countries when our own president and his followers are undermining the honesty of our own election proceedings in this country? We are open and vulnerable right now because the Biden team is not receiving the information they need to take over the reins from the usurper. Let's hope that no country takes advantage and launches an attack on this country between now and January 20.
oh gawwddd . . .another Hitler reference. However, I would suggest you might want to look into the validity of your "vocal minority" thought as being how Hitler came to power.
Geesh. All we need is "Hitler" to demonize any point of contention. Are you and My Esoteric neighbors?
I have a minor in history, GA. Maybe you can trump me. No pun intended.
Of course, I can "trump" you. I majored in European History at Google University.
However, I will try to figure out what it was that jumped out from my memory of past readings that prompted my reply.
(If I don't get back to you it will be because I refuse to admit defeat)
That's OK, I like your answer. A good laugh never hurts!
I am glad that you appreciated my concession of a 'from the hip' quick draw reply. To salvage my credibility I went searching for the readings that caused me to offer such a rebuttal to your comment.
I may still be wrong, (but if so it may be an argument of semantics), but, I still disagree that Hitler rose to power through a vocal minority. It is my opinion that he rose to power through political machinations. Those activities of a party capable of wielding power, not the power of the vote but the power of intimidation.
However, I must acknowledge that the difference between that reasoning and your reasoning of a "political minority" could easily be argued as "just semantics"
So, while I disagree with your "small majority" thought, and stand by my opposition to that thought, I will accede to the argument that this may simply be a difference of semantics.
"How can we call for honest elections in other countries when our own president and his followers are undermining the honesty of our own election proceedings in this country?"
How can we call for honest elections in other countries when we refuse to examine our own elections, hiding it under cover without ever looking at it?
The knife slices both ways.
I'm saddened you think this way, but encouraged that you don't believe there's massive fraud.
What would you think if you saw this story in another country: "election loser tries to overturn election after losing.? In a democratic country, you'd assume there was a coup.
Trump has asserted massive voter fraud ever since 2016. Why didn't he investigate it? He had four years to do so. In fact, I think there were a few commissions formed that found nothing and disbanded. Why not vigorously pursue this prior to the election? Why assert fraud after the result and shake the foundations of the country? There's no going back from this.
So far, the court cases have been tossed out quickly for lack of evidence. A lot of the "evidence" has been based on hearsay. Most of the "evidence" has had nothing to do with fraud. It has to do with how far the Republican observers could stand from the counting.
Reports from inside the administration say that there's no evidence of fraud and no strategy for proving fraud. It's Trump riling up his base. Privately, Trump has told people he's just going to run again in 2024 and this is a way to energize his base.
Tell me, who in the US is refusing to examine your own elections? Court cases are being brought. That's how it should be done.
The only thing Republicans should be saying right now is, "Until the court cases are heard, we cannot say who will be President". To claim they've already won court cases which haven't even been decided yet is, essentially, lying.
Biden has to proceed as if he's won, because if he does turn out to be the winner, his whole team has to hit the ground running in January. He can't afford to wait and see.
"Oh, Crank, they've all got big mouths and tiny brains."
Yet, you believe The Urantia book is gospel truth, right?
https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-st … gin-beings
https://hubpages.com/religion-philosoph … he-new-age
I'm sorry, what is it that you said about "... tiny brains?"
Never heard of it. Defining book of the Trump cult maybe?
So, rather than admit euthanasia of children is evil and shameful, you make false accusation about the Bible in order to support and make excuses for one of your own?
Not surprising, given that your beloved Obama and candidate Biden espouse partial birth abortion, which should be an abomination to any normal and decent person.
It's astonishing that Americans can believe such lies about Obama and Biden when, even in Australia, I know that is not true. A quote from Obama:
"I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported — which was to say — that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born — even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level."
He opposed a particular bill which he felt it was flawed. He has never said he supports partial birth abortion, quite the opposite in fact. Ditto Biden.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/late-term- … democrats/
https://www.congress.gov/108/plaws/publ … ubl105.pdf
(E) The physician credited with developing the partialbirth abortion procedure has testified that he has never
encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was...
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:34 Nov 06, 2003 Jkt 029139 PO 00105 Frm 00004 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL105.108 apps24 PsN: PUBL105
"PUBLIC LAW 108–105—NOV. 5, 2003 117 STAT. 1205
... medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome and,
thus, is never medically necessary to preserve the health
of a woman."
You might want to read the doctor's statement again.
Obama favored partial birth abortion. Of course he would never say outright, "Let us kill babies for the convenience of the mother.
That would be stupid and unclever, of course.
And so, are you the fourth person to defend Mizbejabbers spiritual belief (according to her beloved Urantia book) that "unfit children and babies should be euthanized?
Or is it just partial abortion that sits well with some here?
Maria, I ask this in full sincerity. Don't judge America by the political statements you see in the news. Or, by the statements you hear from the voices that the news promotes. They all have agendas to promote and they DO NOT speak for the American people.
CNN, and most MSM outlets will promote anything that is anti-Conservative, and Fox News will promote anything that is anti-Democrat and anti-liberal, but, those views are not the true American view. It is all about ratings, aka money. Each news channel will pander to its audience.
Either dig deeper or ignore them. Both liberal and conservative MSM distorts the true American view to present a perspective that reinforces the perspective of their viewers.
It is my opinion that mainstream Americans, aka all of us folks in the middle, don't give a hoot what the LIberals or ultra-partisans claim is the true America. We know what American values are, and they aren't what you folks are hearing in the news.
Maybe you should read the Bible.
And abortion is not the subject of this forum. If that's what you want to discuss, start your own forum.
I've read enough to know we should never kill children.
What you fail to realize is that my original comment had to do with that the hypocrisy of the Left.
You are free to disagree with the philosophy of euthanizing children at any point.
I assume your day job is comedian?
Religious people have justified killing people during wars since the beginning of time. They justified killing various groups of people based on God's will. They still do.
Christianity, Judaism, Islam - you're all pretty much the same that way. Honestly, given historical precedent, I'm surprised a few children bothers you at all. Lord knows you've dropped enough bombs on them.
Is that even a serious statement?
So, let me get this straight. It is perfectly fine for members of your party to embrace Hitler's belief in euthanasia as long as they are Democrats.
Any decent person knows that you do not euthanize children.
Or they should... but apparently not, if euthanizing is deemed "spiritual.".
Euthanizing babies is not okay.
Lol, and I'm sure you approve of everything in the bible, too. I'm an atheist and believe it's all hogwash, so I'm not being hypocritical. If you're a Christian, though, then you have no legitimate grounds to cherry pick, since Christians do that all the time.
Let me repeat, Any decent person knows that we do not euthanize children.
"Lol, and I'm sure you approve of everything in the bible, too."
And you know what I believe... because why? By the way, "lol" (laughter) is not an appropriate response for anything having to do with killing children.
Just so you know.
If you want to discuss this issue, go start your own forum. Please try to address the forum of this topic. Not sure how we even got on this.
We got on this topic because Democrats have chosen not to address the hypocrisy of the Left. When one of your own supports a book that chooses to euthanize children and you ignore the obvious indecency of that philosophy... given the fact that Democrats here routinely refer to the president as "Hitler" with no evidence, then we have a serious discrepancy.
"Your throwing it in here is totally irrelevant to this discussion, which is a good indication of the size of your brain"
Personal attack, much?
You can address the question of your "Hitler" hypocrisy at any time if you care to do so.
And no, you did not compare The Bible with your Urantia book which promotes euthanasia and which you fail to condemn.
I provided the link earlier if your memory needs refreshing.
This is a very disturbing book. It's unfortunate that anyone would follow the ideology it offers. OMG, Where the hell is our society heading?
Assuming that he has that "clear evidence" you're suggesting that he use the "court of public opinion", where everyone will decide based on their political affiliation rather than the courts.
It would be foolish beyond belief to take that road; participants in a court trial never take their evidence public before presenting it at trial.
Of course all that is predicated on their being clear evidence of massive voter fraud or other wrongdoing. Something I'm pretty doubtful of.
So far, the court rulings don't seem to be changing opinion. Instead of providing evidence and showing it to his followers, Trump is pushing his followers to find the evidence.
Again, neither Trump, the RNC nor anyone else should be discussing evidence to be used in a court lawsuit to Trump's "followers". Or anyone else outside the court, for that matter.
Nor have I seen or heard anything remotely like "Please find evidence of a legal reason to invalidate the election and forward it to me." coming from Trump. Of course, if one already has solid evidence (as in personally watching election fraud take place I'm sure he would be appreciative if a "whistle blower" stepped up to the plate to ensure the legality of US elections. Or is that out of line with your thinking?
I've read the transcripts of the court cases and the judges reactions to the lack of evidence along with the Trump lawyers admitting that what they're filing suits against wasn't actually true, like being prevented from watching the tally.
Several Trump followers have stepped up with hearsay accusations that have been immediately tossed.
Again, Trump says there is fraud. I presume he has evidence. If so, why doesn't he present it in court so we can move this along instead of filing pointless suits that are wasting time?
And did the lawyers say (as I've heard) that they WERE allowed to watch...from too far away to see what was happening? That would make the statement that they weren't allowed to watch technically true but irrelevant at the same time.
Perhaps he is. I'm hearing quite a bit about the Pa. laws that were simply set aside to run this election different than others...or is that set aside as something other than "fraud"? Judging from the other thread in these forums, Trump has a very good case against Pa.
And of course Ga, does not NEED a lawsuit to get a recount. Take those two from Biden and he loses.
My understanding is that they argued that their watchers were not allowed to watch, but they had to admit to the judge that was not true.
I don't think laws were set aside. The PA Supreme Court ruled on the matter. How PA was run could have benefitted either side since the decision was made prior to the vote.
As far as I know, any disputed ballots have been set aside and are not included in the count as of yet. Still, it's unclear what's fraudulent in anything.
In PA, they accepted mail in ballots long after election day, in violation of their state constitution (as I understand it). These would have heavily in favor of Biden, as we have seen over and over.
With the state supreme court ruling, I rather doubt that those ballots were set aside uncounted. And as of election day the state was heavily in favor of Trump, with only those late mail in ballots yet to be counted - the ones that gave Biden the win.
Just completely wrong.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/election … story.html
Most interesting. I would say that a suit should be filed, but mostly to ensure fair voting and without much hope of changing the election.
New information is always good, isn't it?
The question now is why are they filing these lawsuits?
In PA, they filed 6 and lost all 6 cases. Oddly, the cases had nothing to do with fraud. They had to do with stopping vote counting for contested ballots. However, the numbers for those votes were very small. One case was about 500 or so ballots. The cases had to do with not following instructions about how to sign the outside of the envelope - stuff like that. In at least one ruling, the judge said voters shouldn't be disenfranchised because they may have received wrong instructions. Bottom line, these people voted on time.
Anyway, what's the point of these lawsuits if they're not going to change anything even if they win?
I did see that Trump's team won one lawsuit. Something about late ballots. However, these particular ballots - again, not many of them - had already been segregated and not included in the final count.
It's all seeming like a pretty big waste of time. I wonder if he will ever admit that the election was legitimate and he lost.
Wait. There were no instructions on how to fill out a ballot, including signing and where to sign? Or did the judge just assume that an unknown third party gave wrong instructions (the voters 6 year old child, maybe) and therefore it didn't matter if they did it wrong?
What's the point? What was the point in 3 years of investigation if they couldn't hang Trump? The point is that voting fraud will NOT be tolerated, whether one vote of 100,000.
He may not admit that. And certainly thousands (millions?) of people will not either. A result of constant lying from politicians, coupled with crime and fraud. The American people to not trust the "leaders" that they vote for, let alone those that somebody else voted into office. A sad state of affairs...and indicative, IMO, of why Trump sat in the WH rather than Clinton.
You can go read it. Simply put, there was confusion between the instructions a few voters were given and the actual instructions and the judge didn't think they should be disenfranchised for being given incorrect information.
In press coverage that we've seen here, from several source,s I've seen reports that the Republicans challenged the legality of those votes early, and for that reason, those votes had to be segregated from the rest so they could be easily identified and disallowed if necessary. Which, in fact, they were. But it hasn't changed the result.
I hope the Trump demonstration in Washington will be a peaceful one. Or is this the smooth transition Pompeo is talking about?
by Susie Lehto 4 years ago
But, I want Obama and Trump to see this video a mother posted on Facebook. We have a problem when children are treated with cruelty because they voted for Trump at school. I am sure that child protection has already been contacted and this mother has been relieved of her duties until...
by Jack Lee 3 years ago
As most of you know, I support many of Trump’s initiatives and I defend him here on hubpages when he is unfairly criticized by the media and others.You may also know I did not vote for Trump or Hillary in the 2016 election.Now, after over one year in office, and the signing of the latest Omnibus...
by Allen Donald 10 months ago
Former National Security Adviser has called for President Trump to suspend the Constitution and call for limited martial law in order to re-run the election that would be overseen by the military due to the massive election fraud.Do you agree with General Flynn?Clearly, President Trump believes...
by Readmikenow 13 months ago
If you want to know what Democrats are guilty of...simply see what they are accusing others of doing. THAT is what they're guilty of doing."Will Democrats accept election loss? New report says no.But there is another, equally pressing question: Will Democrats accept the results of the...
by Credence2 14 months ago
It is just dumb, why would the President even open this can of worms? It if were me, I would have asked privately about the possibility of postponing elections, before revealing to the entire world how ignorant I was about the nature and content of this nation's guiding document. Stupid stuff,...
by Allen Donald 11 months ago
There are two separate questions really:1. What if Trump successfully proves that the election was fraudulent?2. What if Trump does not prove that the election was fraudulent, but is able to gain a 2nd term because one of his political appointees makes it so?3. What if Trump does not prove fraud...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|