Prager Speaks
-
@Jolly said in Prager Speaks:
No. 1: While I am not certain the reported election results are dishonest, I suspect they are. Worse, about half this country believes this, too.
This is unprecedented in American history.Oh, that's rich. That might have to do something with a president who says multiple times per day, without ever presenting any actual evidence, that the election was "stolen". That's what's unprecedented.
Nobody should make such claims without hard evidence, and a sitting president should have "beyond a shadow of doubt" evidence before opening his or her mouth. Everything else is a direct attack on the pillars of democracy.
It's good that this is now going to the courts. Everyone can see the evidence (if any) that there is and make up his or her own mind.
-
It's like accusing your spouse of cheating with vague circumstantial evidence.
"I suspect pretty strongly that you cheated... let's see what the private investigators comes back with..."
Not going to lead to good outcomes on either side.
Especially when you accused her 4 years ago... said the evidence would be clear... then never followed up.
-
@Klaus said in Prager Speaks:
@Jolly said in Prager Speaks:
No. 1: While I am not certain the reported election results are dishonest, I suspect they are. Worse, about half this country believes this, too.
This is unprecedented in American history.Oh, that's rich. That might have to do something with a president who says multiple times per day, without ever presenting any actual evidence, that the election was "stolen". That's what's unprecedented.
Nobody should make such claims without hard evidence, and a sitting president should have "beyond a shadow of doubt" evidence before opening his or her mouth. Everything else is a direct attack on the pillars of democracy.
It's good that this is now going to the courts. Everyone can see the evidence (if any) that there is and make up his or her own mind.
That has to be one of the most ignorant statements out there.
-
@xenon said in Prager Speaks:
It's like accusing your spouse of cheating with vague circumstantial evidence.
You guys may not like it
And it might hurt your eyes to read it
But Larry and Jolly have both presented links to pages of evidence
Haven't we discussed this before? There is a lot of evidence to make Mr. Trump's case.
I understand that the democrat heroes are saying there is no evidence, and it is really fun to pretend to be your hero, but they are professionals doing their jobs, there really is a lot of evidence.
-
-
@Klaus said in Prager Speaks:
@Copper said in Prager Speaks:
there really is a lot of evidence.
Well, then you should look forward to what the courts come up with.
Agree. Let the courts look at it.
-
-
@Larry said in Prager Speaks:
Yes. Let the courts look at it, and have all the leftwingers shut up while that happens.
Presumably, the right-wingers don't need to shut up?
-
Cruz worked on Bush v. Gore. He is also very well-versed in the Constitution and election law. If you get a chance to listen to him speak about the matter, listen.
He is convinced there is irregularities. It may be negligence. It may be fraud. It might be just an honest mistake.
But three thresholds have to be met:
- Fraud must have occurred. The cites must be specific, with evidence.
- That fraud must be sufficient to impact the outcome of the election.
- A remedy must be available.
Therefore, you can have am amazingly crooked election, that cannot be overturned.
