You truly are lost on this aren’t you?km1125 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:10 pmThanks for confirming that. Exactly what I said.bmw wrote: ↑Sun Nov 29, 2020 2:02 pmIt isn't. At most, it is reason to further investigate anomalies at a county or city level, but the fact that we had record high turnout nationally in a year with the most divisive president in a hundred years and the biggest pandemic in a hundred years is not at all surprising.
Moreover, you wouldn't hear conservatives complaining about high turnout if Trump had ultimately prevailed. If the tables were turned, and instead, if the Biden people were doing what Trump is now, conservatives would be having multiple cows saying Biden and his cronies are trying to steal the election.
This is so partisan that I mostly tune it out.
The large national turnout wouldn't be an issue except that TRUMP also had record numbers. If what had happened - as we were told for months - that many of his former supporters were jumping ship and either voting for Biden or not voting for him at all (not voting for President) and his numbers dropped, then It would make sense. What happened looks fishy, at best.
Acceptable registrations in the queue through May 12 at 7:00p ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Only 0.3% Of A Chance Election WASN'T Fraudulent
Re: Only 0.3% Of A Chance Election WASN'T Fraudulent
Re: Only 0.3% Of A Chance Election WASN'T Fraudulent
How long did it take Gore to concede? Was he a sore loser?
Re: Only 0.3% Of A Chance Election WASN'T Fraudulent
Gore list by 500 some votes in Florida, the one state that made the difference in the election. Trump lost by thousands in multiple battleground states.
You really don't see the difference?
The censorship king from out of state.
Re: Only 0.3% Of A Chance Election WASN'T Fraudulent
Gore lost- even the media said so. He waited I believe 37 days to concede. If you call Trump a crybaby, you must do the same to Gore, unless you are so biased in your political party you can’t see that.
Re: Only 0.3% Of A Chance Election WASN'T Fraudulent
Record "enthusiasm" for a candidate who barely got out of the basement? Yes, that sounds fishy. If he was hugely popular in the primary it might have made sense. He barely survived the primary and his running mate was one of the first (or the first?) one OUT. If Trump had actually lost votes vs 2016 and Biden beat him by even a small margin that would have made much more sense.Turkeytop wrote: ↑Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:39 pmSo, record participation in a democratic election looks fishy?km1125 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:10 pm
The large national turnout wouldn't be an issue except that TRUMP also had record numbers. If what had happened - as we were told for months - that many of his former supporters were jumping ship and either voting for Biden or not voting for him at all (not voting for President) and his numbers dropped, then It would make sense. What happened looks fishy, at best.
Looks like a successful democracy to me.
Re: Only 0.3% Of A Chance Election WASN'T Fraudulent
km1125 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 29, 2020 5:22 pm
Record "enthusiasm" for a candidate who barely got out of the basement? Yes, that sounds fishy. If he was hugely popular in the primary it might have made sense. He barely survived the primary and his running mate was one of the first (or the first?) one OUT. If Trump had actually lost votes vs 2016 and Biden beat him by even a small margin that would have made much more sense.
They turned out in record numbers to vote against the incumbent.
I don't mean to brag, but I just put a puzzle together in 1 day and the box said 2-4 years.
Re: Only 0.3% Of A Chance Election WASN'T Fraudulent
And after the closest election in history, that went to the Supreme Court to eventually be decided, Hore gave a graceful, classy, patriotic concession speech. Do you think we will get that from your candidate?
The censorship king from out of state.
- MotorCityRadioFreak
- Posts: 6512
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
- Location: Warren, MI
Re: Only 0.3% Of A Chance Election WASN'T Fraudulent
Not to mention, Gore was waiting for the whole recount fiasco in Palm Beach County. There were several ballots that never were counted. I was blinded by my Bush support at the time, but he stole that election.
Gore was much more classy in a situation where I would not have been.
They/them, non-binary and proud.
Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.
Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.
Re: Only 0.3% Of A Chance Election WASN'T Fraudulent
What actually happened is that at varying points in the night Florida and the race were called for both candidates and then gore conceded and unconceded in short order once it was clear Florida was messed up. Nobody anywhere was running around declaring Bush the president-elect because nobody really knew the outcome. None of that is the case here. It’s totally, 100%, absolutely different.
Re: Only 0.3% Of A Chance Election WASN'T Fraudulent
My candidate? I didn’t vote for either. I’m just calling out hypocrisy.
I remember Gore complaining quite a bit actually, even after conceding. Perhaps not that night, but certainly after (constantly reminding people he won the popular vote- which he did, although not a majority, no candidate did).
I remember Gore complaining quite a bit actually, even after conceding. Perhaps not that night, but certainly after (constantly reminding people he won the popular vote- which he did, although not a majority, no candidate did).
-
- Posts: 2778
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:05 am
Re: Only 0.3% Of A Chance Election WASN'T Fraudulent
Brian Stelter on his Sunday Show “Reliable Sources” (11/29) called out Maria Bartilomo for her long interview with Trump that same morning. Said Trump was not lying as usual but rather had advanced into a delusional state of mind. Which she did not challenge with fact-based follow up questions but shockingly let stand unchallenged, and in some instances echoed Trump’s outrage to his delusions.
Uh, once again, we have a journalist, Stelter, refusing to utter the words “mentally ill” regarding Trump’s words and behaviors.
Like other real journalists (as opposed to Bartolomo’s new TV host duties) Stelter pussy foots around the obvious by using words like delusional, unstable, truth challenged, eratic, chaotic, etc. to describe Trump’s illness symptoms.
When are these journalists in the main stream media (as opposed to the stinking stagnant pond media) going to question Trump’s mental health as he sinks deeper into delusion?
Uh, once again, we have a journalist, Stelter, refusing to utter the words “mentally ill” regarding Trump’s words and behaviors.
Like other real journalists (as opposed to Bartolomo’s new TV host duties) Stelter pussy foots around the obvious by using words like delusional, unstable, truth challenged, eratic, chaotic, etc. to describe Trump’s illness symptoms.
When are these journalists in the main stream media (as opposed to the stinking stagnant pond media) going to question Trump’s mental health as he sinks deeper into delusion?