Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Alan Klein]

As a result of the seven successfully cast faithless votes, the Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Clinton, lost five of her pledged electors while the Republican Party nominee and then president-elect, Donald Trump, lost two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

I know.  She was as successful trying to get around the constitution as Trump was in the 2020 election.

[Peter McLennan]

Who's getting conspiratorial now? 

Trump, obviously.  That's what the whole article was about.

[TechTalk]

I know.  She was as successful trying to get around the constitution as Trump was in the 2020 election.

I must have missed the part where she tried to get Vice President Biden to refuse to accept and toss out the electoral votes of states she lost or called the Secretary of State in a state she lost to coerce them into finding the needed votes to win.

They're called a false equivalence because they're not equivalent and they're false.

[Alan Klein]

You didn't listen to that Fresh Air podcast, did you? You didn't read the article from The Atlantic, did you? But you're ok with repeating nonsense that was debunked months ago.

I don't follow, are you ok with Trump's trying to overturn electoral votes in states he lost? Do you think that's an ok thing to do? I've asked you this before. You don't actually believe in democracy and free votes, do you?

No I don't agree with trying to overturn electoral votes either by force or by getting electors to change their duty, even if constitutional.  For Trump or Hillary or anyone else. 

However, I have no problem with any candidate challenging the votes in any state.  That's acceptable and constitutional and has been done very often.  I'm sure you recall the 2000 election where disputes of which votes were valid went all the way to the Supreme Court which determined the outcome of the election. 

[Alan Klein]

I must have missed the part where she tried to get Vice President Biden to refuse to accept and toss out the electoral votes of states she lost or called the Secretary of State in a state she lost to coerce them into finding the needed votes to win.

They're called a false equivalence because they're not equivalent and they're false.

Let's not go down that road of who was more of a finagler.  Was it appropriate for Hillary to pay $10,000 to a British spy to put together a phony dossier on Trump that helped cause all his problems before and after the election and hurt America in our relations with Russia and others?    That well is very deep to draw from.

[TechTalk]

They're called a false equivalence because they're not equivalent and they're false.

[Alan Klein]

How'd we get sucked back into talking about Trump again? He's gone a year already.  I thought we moved on to Biden and his problems, more apropos.  Voters aren't going to care about Trump in November.  The midterms will be decided on how Biden is doing.  Maybe that's why Democrats want to keep investigating Trump hoping lighting strikes again.  They're fighting the old war.  I don't think that's going to work again this time.  People are more concerned about the economy and inflation.  How that goes, so goes the election.

[Robert Roaldi]

No I don't agree with trying to overturn electoral votes either by force or by getting electors to change their duty, even if constitutional.  For Trump or Hillary or anyone else. 

However, I have no problem with any candidate challenging the votes in any state.  That's acceptable and constitutional and has been done very often.  I'm sure you recall the 2000 election where disputes of which votes were valid went all the way to the Supreme Court which determined the outcome of the election.

Even if they were frivolous and vexatious? FFS, the Trumpster was caught on the phone trying to get the guy from Georgia to manufacture votes for him, and after that guy refused he was hounded by Trumpistan. Are you not even a little bit repulsed by that?

[Peter McLennan]

No I don't agree with trying to overturn electoral votes either by force or by getting electors to change their duty, even if constitutional.  For Trump or Hillary or anyone else. 

Yet you continue to advertise your support for the only President who did precisely that.

However, I have no problem with any candidate challenging the votes in any state.

Of course.  By challenging the vote count legally, properly in a court of law, and that's exactly what Trump did.  He lost 64 times out of 65.

When that failed, he threatened at least one election official to change the vote in his favour.   In a recorded voice call!
Is this what you mean by "challenging" the vote?

I'm sure you recall the 2000 election where disputes of which votes were valid went all the way to the Supreme Court which determined the outcome of the election.

Yes, it did. To the greater loss of most of the civilized world, the Iraqi people and the United States of America.

[Alan Klein]

Even if they were frivolous and vexatious? FFS, the Trumpster was caught on the phone trying to get the guy from Georgia to manufacture votes for him, and after that guy refused he was hounded by Trumpistan. Are you not even a little bit repulsed by that?

If he did that then he was wrong, very wrong.  That's stepping over the line.  But frankly, I don't care anymore about Trump.  He lost. We need to get younger more talented people to run in 2024. 

[TechTalk]

But frankly, I don't care anymore about Trump.

Well, you sure fooled me.

[Alan Klein]

Yet you continue to advertise your support for the only President who did precisely that.
Of course.  By challenging the vote count legally, properly in a court of law, and that's exactly what Trump did.  He lost 64 times out of 65.

When that failed, he threatened at least one election official to change the vote in his favour.   In a recorded voice call!
Is this what you mean by "challenging" the vote?

Yes, it did. To the greater loss of most of the civilized world, the Iraqi people and the United States of America.

I defended him when he did right and when democrats stepped over the line and hurt not only Trump but the country.  Do you think Democrats ever stepped over the line in their accusations and efforts to destroy his presidency?

[TechTalk]

Do you think Democrats ever stepped over the line in their accusations and efforts to destroy his presidency?

Which Democrats? If it's a broad general question, then the answer is no. I think that Trump was his own worst enemy... and perhaps the country's as well.

[Alan Klein]

Well, you sure fooled me.

Well, that's OK.  You keep on talking about Trump while the rest of the country rates Biden's stewardship.  Your diversion won't work this time.  Biden can't hide in his basement any longer. 

[digitaldog]

I know.  She was as successful trying to get around the constitution as Trump was in the 2020 election.

You don't know. You've again proven you don't know. By providing a URL you didn't read. Or read and didn't understand.
Nothing new.

[digitaldog]

How'd we get sucked back into talking about Trump again?

You began typing.
You have this odd repetitive habit of asking questions of others, when your posting history and agenda show/prove, you have no desire or ability to accept any answer. No need to ask.

[Alan Klein]

Which Democrats? If it's a broad general question, then the answer is no. I think that Trump was his own worst enemy... and perhaps the country's as well.

You don't think Hillary stepped over the line with the phony dossier?  That was a political smear campaign from the beginning.  Did Democratic supporters in the FBI do their job in a non-biased way?  Were Democrats of many stripes right when they called Trump a traitor for colluding with Russians?  How about all the Democratic investigations in Congress, Mueller, etc.  Impeachments.  These were all political gamesmanship.  Trump didn't know what he was going to run into when he decided to run.  On the other hand, he's just like them or learned to be. 

Frankly, the best government for America is when it's split.  The president from one party and Congress from the other.  They keep each other in check and fewer stupid laws are passed. 

[TechTalk]

How'd we get sucked back into talking about Trump again?

After Trump won in 2016, lots of Democrats claimed...

[TechTalk]

You don't think Hillary stepped over the line with the phony dossier?  That was a political smear campaign from the beginning.  Did Democratic supporters in the FBI do their job in a non-biased way?  Were Democrats of many stripes right when they called Trump a traitor for colluding with Russians?  How about all the Democratic investigations in Congress, Mueller, etc.  Impeachments.  These were all political gamesmanship.  Trump didn't know what he was going to run into when he decided to run.  On the other hand, he's just like them or learned to be. 

Your narrative is false, full of false premises and ignorance of essential facts, and has been discussed into the ground. There's no value in discussing it with you any further. In short... it's a huge waste of time for everyone except yourself, as you simply repeat the same false narrative endlessly and you seem to enjoy it.

[Alan Klein]

Your narrative is false, full of false premises and ignorance of essential facts, and has been discussed into the ground. There's no value in discussing it with you any further. In short... it's a huge waste of time for everyone except yourself, as you simply repeat the same false narrative endlessly and you seem to enjoy it.

You avoided answering the questions because you know Democrats played loads of games and still are.