US political crisis

The "not fair" guess was not all that serious.
I would probably have guessed "smile" which still would have been wrong i guess. :cheerleader:

Honestly couldnt even remember she had made a song named "fuck you", but after listening to it i do remember hearing it before.
I dont listen to Lily much.
Meh. Too much content only suggests excuses for being WRONG again.
My work is done for the evening :D
 
Even if you wouldn't know Trump or anything about the US election and you hear a call with a guy saying: "hey, find me 12.000 votes so I can win", you don't think that's damning enough? :laugh:
Some would think it damning for sure, but not me, I'm more in the camp of what's this all about and would look into it further before making a snap judgement.
 
Some would think it damning for sure, but not me, I'm more in the camp of what's this all about and would look into it further before making a snap judgement.

Yeah, you got a point. What the actual fuck is it all about that the president of a country is calling a governor of one of the states asking him to find him 12k votes somewhere?! :laugh:
 
Yeah, you got a point. What the actual fuck is it all about that the president of a country is calling a governor of one of the states asking him to find him 12k votes somewhere?! :laugh:
He called the Secretary of State, I think he's in charge of the elections so he would be the one to call. You should really listen to the first 6 minutes of the call when Trump goes through what he believes were illegal ballots.
 
However else Trump could have phrased it, it all boils down to the same thing, a belief or strong conviction that Georgia under raffensperger had counted fraudulent biden votes that could have been binned through signature matching or other auditing.

The greater number found the more embarrasing it would be for the republicans incl raffensperger in control there, hence find me 12,000 -out of the many thousands that got through is the context- which would be less embarrassing as it is of a smaller scale, you need to understand the background context of a phone call to interpret the meaning.

The literal meaning implied by the media is stupid, no president is going to phone up a state secretary and ask him to break the law so that he can win the election, it's obvious the phone conversation would be recorded, probably from both ends.

Trump probably should have had something written for him beforehand by a legally qualified pro, and then stuck to that script, you'd think he would have learnt after the covid health advice saga. [or ukraine phone call]
 
He called the Secretary of State, I think he's in charge of the elections so he would be the one to call. You should really listen to the first 6 minutes of the call when Trump goes through what he believes were illegal ballots.

Yet his lawyers never made a proper case about it even tho they had all this so called evidence. Makes you think.
 
The literal meaning implied by the media is stupid, no president is going to phone up a state secretary and ask him to break the law so that he can win the election, it's obvious the phone conversation would be recorded, probably from both ends.
I would never suspect the man who suggested to inject bleach, and later went on to declare himself the winner before the votes were counted to do something stupid.
Sounds so out of character for him.
;)
 
No matter what people think his intentions with the call was, the way it was made was imo not ok.
Full of thinly veiled threats, mixed with pandering, begging,outright lies about so called evidence he had, lies about dominion etc etc

If he had a shred of the evidence he says he has in the call, he would actually have won the election.
Imo since he didnt have any evidence, he resorted to trying to push Raffensperger to 'find' the votes instead.
 
The way that call was made was like handing a big stick to his numerous enemies to beat him with!

As far as I understand all the votes are sealed once counted, they are the primary evidence, then cross referencing trails and signature audits, along with statistical analysis and surveys would be needed to locate any dodgy votes.

It's not possible if the power and apparatus of Govt wants you out and won't lend a hand to investigate.

The fact Trump won over another 11 million voters from 2016 was a big vote of confidence and a statistical/cultural/political anamoly that has never happened before to a losing president. [incl more votes from the ethnic sections of society he was supposedly unpopular with]

I think it would be very hard in fact to find another election in any major country where a sitting president/prime minister increases their vote by that percent [17%] and yet loses, this must be the first time ever I'd be prepared to wager.

Exceptional events should be looked into just in case all is not what it seems.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top