If much of the U.S. believe the election was stolen or is something fishy about it, then why not have an investigation by an impartial party?

Some say much of the U.S. believe the election was stolen or somethings don't look right. If much of the U.S. believe the election was stolen or something is fishy about it, then why not have an investigation by an impartial party? That way it can clear it up for the people and trust in the system can be reinstated for those who lost it do to this.

 
Last edited:

Whateverman

Well-known member
Townhall.com is a hyper-partisan conservative magazine. It's views on most everything should at least be checked, if not questioned outright.

First off, it'd be a waste of money, but I have no problem with a bi-partisan investigation. I wouldn't be surprised if someone tries to start an investigation in the next year, though whether it'll be impartial or not is the question.

It'd be a waste, though, because:

  • The Drumpf administration started an investigation into voter fraud in the 2016 election. It came up empty, but that didn't stop our so-called president from complaining that voter fraud was everywhere...
  • Republican lawsuits have failed spectacularly to demonstrate that anything was stolen in 2020, or that enough fraud was committed to change the election results. 60+ lawsuits, all either dismissed or ruled against the Drumpf administration. One or two found that portions of the suit had merit, but none of them were technically won by the GOP lawyers.
  • Experts and officials have already verified the integrity of the elections in their states. The few who haven't are still trying to hash this out - in the court of public opinion, because the court of law has said "no".
  • Other experts and officials - from Drumpf's own administration - have said the elections were free, fair and legitimate
  • It's pretty clear by now that the people who think the election was stolen do so independent of the evidence. Yes, they can point to what they claim is evidence for their POV, but the vast majority of the evidence is in favor of the elections having been NOT stolen from anyone. If these people are only going to be content with an investigation that proves their POV correct, then an impartial investigation is useless.

As I said, though, I have nothing against yet one more investigation. Maybe it'll happen once Biden's in office.
 
I dont think it will. I think too many people have so much trust in the system that they think it couldn't possibly be any different. Especially after the court rejections.
 

Chuckz

Member
Some say much of the U.S. believe the election was stolen or somethings don't look right. If much of the U.S. believe the election was stolen or something is fishy about it, then why not have an investigation by an impartial party? That way it can clear it up for the people and trust in the system can be reinstated for those who lost it do to this.


The Governor in Georgia already said that recounts only change a couple of hundreds of votes. Usually they check signatures if they match. Tell me if you signature stays the same from four years ago. I look at my signature from every year before and its my signature but it doesn't always match even though it is similar to how I write today. The DMV use to have us write our signature without looking at it and it never worked. I don't write the same.

But the problem is some counties would rather pave their roads than have to pay for recounts.

Georgia recount costs some counties hundreds of thousands of dollars​


Trump Paid $3 Million For Wisconsin Recount – Biden Has Netted Votes From It​



Trump Campaign Spends $8.8 Million in Effort to Overturn Vote​


He has been campaigning since the election because he is allowed to take from what supporters donate and He is in debt. It doesn't matter if his campaign loses $8.8 million on a recount that doesn't change anything because its not his money.

They recounted the votes in a number of states. He lost Pennsylvania, he lost Georgia and he lost Wisconsin. There is no path to reclaiming the White House.

Who Is Paying for Trump’s Lawsuits and Recounts?​


On Nov. 10, the small print changed: now 60% of every donation goes to Trump’s new leadership PAC, “Save America.” Only after a donor gives the $5,000 legal maximum to Save America would any portion of their contribution go to Trump’s recount account.

The remainder of every check, 40% goes to the RNC, up to the legal maximum of $35,500. Only donors who’ve maxed out to the RNC will have their contributions deposited in the party’s legal and headquarters accounts, each of which can accept contributions of up to $106,500.

VERIFY: Donald Trump has raised $200 million since Election Day. Where does it go?​


Trump Set to Leave Office with at Least $850,000 of Unpaid Campaign Rally Bills​


There is this post going viral on social media:

"So the voters can't be trusted, the poll workers can't be trusted, the voting machines can't be trusted, the media can't be trusted, Bill Barr can't be trusted, the guy who was in charge of election security can't be trusted, the lower courts can't be trusted, the appellate courts can't be trusted, and the Supreme Court can't be trusted."

"But Donald Trump can be trusted."

"Roll that around in your head for about 3 minutes and realize how incredibly mindboggling stupid that sounds."

I don't know who wrote it but I and others want some grownups to be in charge.
 

Chuckz

Member
"It is not cheating, it is democracy": A first-hand look at ballot counting in Pennsylvania

Josh Shapiro: Let me break it down for you. Each campaign had observers in the room while the ballots were being counted. In addition to that, even if you're not a certified watcher, you can turn on the Iivestream and watch it on TV and keep an eye on the activity if you'd like.

Bill Whitaker: You heard the president's speech Thursday night. He was claiming that the election was being stolen from him.

Josh Shapiro: Donald Trump can say whatever he wants. But we just had an election, an election that was secure, an election where the votes were tallied. And a proper winner will be certified, based not on the words of President Trump, but the votes of the American people.

 

Chuckz

Member
Malcolm Kenyatta: This is what the president does. He wants to create confusion and chaos and then say, "Oh my God, there's so much confusion and chaos." And then I say, "Well, pick up a mirror. Of course, there's confusion and chaos. You created it."

 

vibise

Active member
Some say much of the U.S. believe the election was stolen or somethings don't look right. If much of the U.S. believe the election was stolen or something is fishy about it, then why not have an investigation by an impartial party? That way it can clear it up for the people and trust in the system can be reinstated for those who lost it do to this.

Don't you accept the court system as providing impartial judgements on the 60 or so election cases put before them?
 

Gus Bovona

Active member
Some say much of the U.S. believe the election was stolen or somethings don't look right. If much of the U.S. believe the election was stolen or something is fishy about it, then why not have an investigation by an impartial party? That way it can clear it up for the people and trust in the system can be reinstated for those who lost it do to this.

Investigate all you want, but it will be an investigation that won’t change the 2020 election, and it shouldn’t. States have a process in place for checking that an election was proper, and that process has to be followed. If an investigation takes longer than that process, it can’t be helped. And investigations have to have a closing date because election results can’t be held up past certain deadlnes.
 
Don't you accept the court system as providing impartial judgements on the 60 or so election cases put before them?
Some say leftist have tooken over. Some say the Process started in the 1960s. Some say some communist had something to do with it. Who knows?



 

Backup

Active member
Some say much of the U.S. believe the election was stolen or somethings don't look right. If much of the U.S. believe the election was stolen or something is fishy about it, then why not have an investigation by an impartial party? That way it can clear it up for the people and trust in the system can be reinstated for those who lost it do to this.

This is probably the most vetted election in American history.

At some point the losers have to accept they’ve lost.

Everyone has been way, way too patient with these QAnon conspiracy types. Every day there seems to be a new, insane, claim of a smoking gun, that turns out to be a laughable lie.

I‘m saying no more humoring these people, they are obviously not showing good faith.

 

Backup

Active member

vibise

Active member
Some say leftist have tooken over. Some say the Process started in the 1960s. Some say some communist had something to do with it. Who knows?



"some" say? Who is "some" and why are they credible?

The fact is that many of the judges presiding over those 60 election cases were Republicans appointed by Republican Presidents, including by Trump.

And all sorts of people claim credit for things they actually had nothing to do with.
 

Chuckz

Member
The Cold War has been over for 30 years.
Trump lost. There is no path to 270 electoral votes. Trump can sell his brand by challenging the election and can even have Vice President accept only the electoral votes that get them elected but it won't pass both houses of congress. There are already a number of Republicans opposed and the House won't vote for it.

Its an example of causing hysteria for those who do not know how both congress work to sell their brand and make certification of the president take longer.

I am appalled and the whole thing is disgraceful to use people for campaign money. Its deceitful.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
Trump lost. There is no path to 270 electoral votes. Trump can sell his brand by challenging the election and can even have Vice President accept only the electoral votes that get them elected but it won't pass both houses of congress. There are already a number of Republicans opposed and the House won't vote for it.

Its an example of causing hysteria for those who do not know how both congress work to sell their brand and make certification of the president take longer.

I am appalled and the whole thing is disgraceful to use people for campaign money. Its deceitful.
I'm torn between thinking it's deceitful, and wondering if anyone is actually being deceived. Part of me suspects that the current white house occupant will get money no matter what he says it's for.

He said he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose any voters - and he was right. The problem's not with him; it's with the voters...
 

Chuckz

Member
The following is from what I believe is a republican judge:

In that decision handed down on Saturday, Judge Matthew W. Brann wrote that Mr. Trump’s campaign, which had asked him to effectively disenfranchise nearly seven million voters, should have come to court “armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption” in its efforts to essentially nullify the results of Pennsylvania’s election.

But instead, Judge Brann complained, the Trump campaign provided only “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations” that were “unsupported by evidence.”

After legal defeats in nearly all of the key swing states — Michigan, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona and Wisconsin — Mr. Trump’s path to overturning the results of the election through the courts has all but vanished.

Transition Highlights: Judge Dismisses Trump Lawsuit in Pennsylvania
 

Chuckz

Member
I'm torn between thinking it's deceitful, and wondering if anyone is actually being deceived. Part of me suspects that the current white house occupant will get money no matter what he says it's for.

He said he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose any voters - and he was right. That's not a problem with him; that's a problem with the voters...
It's legal and clear that the money can be used for other things but the premise before the legal terms is not.

There was already a millionaire who wanted his money back and the posturing is without merit or evidence.
 
How can the proper evidence be obtained if there is no investigation. Many say there is no evidence but without an investigation, evidence may not be obtained if there is some.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
How can the proper evidence be obtained if there is no investigation.
There've already been plenty of investigations and recounts. The elections were nearly all certified, by state regulators charged with ensuring the elections were legal, fair and legitimate. Overarching government bodies have investigated and declared the elections the most secure in recent history.

As I said, I don't really have a problem with one more investigation, but you make it sound like no one's looked around for evidence of fraud. PLENTY of people looked, and very little was found. Do you think the lawyers bringing all these suits to court didn't bother looking for evidence???
 
Top