Dave
Well-known member
Hillary was quoted to have said that if they take her down she is taking half of DC with her. Let the chips fall where they may. I believe that half of DC is an under statement.
Historical
- Thread starter Caustic Burno
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
- Status
Lee VanRoss
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2020
- Messages
- 2,392
- Reaction score
- 2,682
sstt***** Did you mean like Democratic Republic of the Congo? One can only conclude from your response thou wouldst have us in the same
league as a country that has been engulfed in civil conflict since World War II and currently numbered among, if not the poorest nation on the globe.
At issue here is education vs indoctrination or as the case may be an indoctrinated educator.......
Education can be held up under the light of interpretation,...... indoctrination is but wind without rain.
I would pray Constitutional Federal Republic carries the day!
league as a country that has been engulfed in civil conflict since World War II and currently numbered among, if not the poorest nation on the globe.
At issue here is education vs indoctrination or as the case may be an indoctrinated educator.......
Education can be held up under the light of interpretation,...... indoctrination is but wind without rain.
I would pray Constitutional Federal Republic carries the day!
Silver
Well-known member
Only half? If such a thing were to happen in Ottawa I would expect at least 75%
I tend to agree that with the number of people that believe there was fraud in the election that it needs to be investigated. The problem is that no amount of proof will change anyone's mind. That is until President Trump himself will come out and say he lost in a fair election (if they are unable to prove any significant fraud). And I really don't think he is capable of admitting defeat. If there is fraud I really hope they can prove it.
If there is a big coverup I think it would have to be on a large scale and something that would be hard to detect. I don't think the reports of people showing up to vote and being told they had already voted by mail or observers being asked to watch from far away will really amount to anything. It would be near impossible to have widespread fraud with a lot of people involved. People like to talk and brag about things way too much for hundreds if not thousands of people to be in on something and for all of them to keep their mouth shut. But they need to look into everything none the less.
I haven't followed things as close as I probably should and I hope someone will correct me if I am wrong. But I believe the major part of the latest lawsuit is the fact that states improperly changed voting laws correct? So if for example the original law said my ballot had to be recieved by Nov. 3rd, and the state AG, Gov., or SOS changed it to where I'm told my vote only has to be postmarked by the end of the day Nov. 3rd. So in good faith I vote and turn in my ballot to the post office Nov. 3rd, now there is a chance my vote won't count. Right or wrong if that changed the outcome of the election I think that would give even more of the appearance of the election being stolen. I don't think we can change rules after the fact, even if they were illegally changed. I think we would have to re-vote in those states.
If there is a big coverup I think it would have to be on a large scale and something that would be hard to detect. I don't think the reports of people showing up to vote and being told they had already voted by mail or observers being asked to watch from far away will really amount to anything. It would be near impossible to have widespread fraud with a lot of people involved. People like to talk and brag about things way too much for hundreds if not thousands of people to be in on something and for all of them to keep their mouth shut. But they need to look into everything none the less.
I haven't followed things as close as I probably should and I hope someone will correct me if I am wrong. But I believe the major part of the latest lawsuit is the fact that states improperly changed voting laws correct? So if for example the original law said my ballot had to be recieved by Nov. 3rd, and the state AG, Gov., or SOS changed it to where I'm told my vote only has to be postmarked by the end of the day Nov. 3rd. So in good faith I vote and turn in my ballot to the post office Nov. 3rd, now there is a chance my vote won't count. Right or wrong if that changed the outcome of the election I think that would give even more of the appearance of the election being stolen. I don't think we can change rules after the fact, even if they were illegally changed. I think we would have to re-vote in those states.
Silver
Well-known member
The only State where the rules changed after the fact was PA where the Court changed the date where voters could remedy a ballot regarding some problem. The date changed from Nov 9th to Nov 12. Trump won that case and that extremely small number of ballots did not count. That is why he is 1-50 on his legal challenges. He still lost PA by over 80,000 votes.
OP
OP
Caustic Burno
Well-known member
This is off track and not the issue. Corruption has run rampant on both sides for years. Forget the political garbage here.
The scary part here is the integrity of our republic is not guarded by the press.
Where are we going to be if we don't believe the integrity of our election results. The point is this effects both sides.
The numbers don't add up.
Look it up for yourself. Winner won with the fewest counties ever actually by less than half of any other President.
This is the very reason the electoral college was established to prevent large cities from running the country. Less than 500 counties decided the results for over 3000 counties.
This has always in the past needed almost 1000 counties to pull it off.
Again this is screwy as Chinese Arithmetic.
Lee VanRoss
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2020
- Messages
- 2,392
- Reaction score
- 2,682
CB2 > "The problem is that no amount of proof will change anyone's mind.''
That is opinion based upon your assumption..................
" If they (votes) were illegally changed, I think we would have to re-vote those states.''
If the rules were changed illegally the illicit votes would be thrown out and the perpretators adjudicated.
No mention of Do-over in the Constitution of which I am aware. What you or I think is of little consequence
as regards the Constitutiion. The Document stands upon its own merit.
You agree there is fraud in the election that needs to be investigated (until President Trump himself comes out and says he
lost in a fair election----and if there is fraud I really hope they can prove it.. (??????)
Verifiable fraud would need to be prosecuted regardless...Why would Trump or anyone perjure themselves and say the election
was fair if indeed the opposite were the case?
That is opinion based upon your assumption..................
" If they (votes) were illegally changed, I think we would have to re-vote those states.''
If the rules were changed illegally the illicit votes would be thrown out and the perpretators adjudicated.
No mention of Do-over in the Constitution of which I am aware. What you or I think is of little consequence
as regards the Constitutiion. The Document stands upon its own merit.
You agree there is fraud in the election that needs to be investigated (until President Trump himself comes out and says he
lost in a fair election----and if there is fraud I really hope they can prove it.. (??????)
Verifiable fraud would need to be prosecuted regardless...Why would Trump or anyone perjure themselves and say the election
was fair if indeed the opposite were the case?
Green Pastures
Active member
The liberal press will have nothing to do pretty soon because they have covered nothing but Trump for the last 5 years. They don't report news, anyway, just political opinion. I've read that many of the guys on liberal channels will get canned and also that CNN is to be sold pretty quick. Oddly, I heard the same news about Fox.
OP
OP
Caustic Burno
Well-known member
Of the major media l truly wonder who owns them now?
Turning from one channel to the next was like listening to parrots using the exact same words and leads.
A few decades ago you could see they were truly in competition to get the lead story first no matter who got muddy.
Now they are in lock step and think we're too stupid to see it.
Maybe we are.
Green Pastures
Active member
We switched to Newsmax a month or so ago and rarely watch Fox. Maybe we see The Five, Hannity, Laura, and Judge Jeannine. Sources say that Newsmax has taken an average of 10,000 viewers a month from Fox. They are channel 216 on Dish and have a web page online. Straight conservative. Familiar faces from Fox are there.
OP
OP
Caustic Burno
Well-known member
The hilarious part is both sides are hollering at the other side your crook has to go for our crook.
Back when the media was semi ethnical we got crooks that let us keep a little bit.
This was till the crooks got control of the media and tunnel vision occurred.
There is no moral high ground here.
Unless we believe in the integrity of our election we have all lost no matter who's in the oval.
Back when the media was semi ethnical we got crooks that let us keep a little bit.
This was till the crooks got control of the media and tunnel vision occurred.
There is no moral high ground here.
Unless we believe in the integrity of our election we have all lost no matter who's in the oval.
Green Pastures
Active member
I agree with you, CB, but in my mind I really need to listen and watch a news information source that is totally unbiased and is one that has high credibility. I read 12-15 conservative websites a day online that provide me with reliable information but it ain't the same with TV. The ones out there are truly drive-by media conceived by powerful liberal bias. For this reason I praise Newsmax.
Silver
Well-known member
Well if it is a conservative network or a liberal network by definition it will not be unbiased. Good grief.
Green Pastures
Active member
Well, Silver, we may just have to agree to disagree. For the last 5 years I have been continuously assaulted by uber liberal propaganda, so now that there is some credible AND unbiased conservative news out there, it gives me a greater sense of where we are and where we are going. Good grief, Silver, are you saying that you haven't become sick to your stomach by mainstream media?
Silver
Well-known member
If you are solely patronizing news sites with an agenda that aligns with your own to hear things you agree with you are part of the problem not part of the solution. It's that simple.
Green Pastures
Active member
As I said, Silver, we may have to just agree to disagree.
D2Cat
Well-known member
I've highlighted your first sentence where you declare the Hunter Biden conversation is off track and not the issue. Then you say the scary part is the integrity of the republic is not guarded by the press.
If the press had been doing what most Americans expect the press to do, they would have exposed all the dealing with the CCP (Communist Chinese Party) Hunter Biden had, and how "the Big Guy" as the Communist referred to Joe Biden was involved....and the election would have had different outcomes. https://dawsoncountyjournal.com/blo...ole-election-by-censoring-hunter-biden-story/
I am in no way defending Hunter Biden if he did anything wrong. If he did, he should be held responsible.
But, do we just overlook Ivanka and all of her contracts with China while holding an official capacity in the White House, particularly during trade negotiations?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommyb...hina-after-trump-was-elected/?sh=6fe2ad1f1d60
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ivanka-trump-receives-5-trademarks-from-china-amid-trade-talks/
China grants 18 trademarks in 2 months to Trump, daughter
Trump's children take in millions overseas
But, do we just overlook Ivanka and all of her contracts with China while holding an official capacity in the White House, particularly during trade negotiations?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommyb...hina-after-trump-was-elected/?sh=6fe2ad1f1d60
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ivanka-trump-receives-5-trademarks-from-china-amid-trade-talks/
China grants 18 trademarks in 2 months to Trump, daughter
Trump's children take in millions overseas
OP
OP
Caustic Burno
Well-known member
Y'all are trying to take the moral high ground my crook is better than your crook.
You don't see a problem there?
My crystal ball sees a lock coming.
This thread was never about a candidate for me but our election system.
I think their all snakes some are just less venomous.
You don't see a problem there?
My crystal ball sees a lock coming.
This thread was never about a candidate for me but our election system.
I think their all snakes some are just less venomous.
- Status
