Likely Presidential election result

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Like Trump Russia Collusion, right?

That the PA supreme court unlawfully circumvented the US Constitution, yeah the evidence to support that is irrefutable.
That is the one issue that actually has some supporting evidence.
It's typical Democrat Party, in point of fact. I understand your desire. The Dems have stolen an election, and you want to keep it stolen. Hey, cheer for whatever team you like, but spare me your pearl clutching.
Unsupported nonsense.
In general or as it has been completely re-imagined in 2020. Joe Biden is to be congratulated:


He said he had the best election fraud operation in history and he proved it. Whether you think that is good or bad you a judgement for you to make.
When a misspeak is the best evidence you have the paucity of your position is betrayed.
Interesting, did you have any thoughts about Trump Russia Collusion for four years. A four year long coup against the winner of the 2016 election deserves your consideration. But that may just me my since of fairness speaking.
You have a sense of fairness? Not that I've noticed.
I have to admire your constancy in your seating contempt for us non-elitist of the world. One would think you'd break your character by accident some day, but no you have routine down. It's a miracle of consistency. That's what conservatives lack.
That would be the "contempt" that exists only in the imagination of some conservatives.
A looser with coat tail? When was the last time you saw that? Your willingness to believe anything is another iron rod of consistency you bring to the table.
You're the one so eager to swallow Trump's lies...and have been for four years.
I don't want to shatter your world because you seem to be on a roll, but the news media doesn't pick the winner. In fact, they have zero roll, except in psych-ops like the CIA uses to topple small governments. There is no president elect, the process is on going.
Which is completely irrelevant to the fact that Trump's whines are (with the exception of PA, above) completely unfounded and represent nothing more than a child having a tantrum. The amusing - and yet at the same time tragic - thing is how many of his sycophants want to join him in his tantrum.
 

DieBrille

Member

Impressive.

Actually. I don't have any sinus problems. But I do appreciate the offer.

MEDIA=youtube]z0A4yvTAwTg[/MEDIA]

Impressive.

Actually. I don't have any sinus problems. But I do appreciate the offer.
Al of those are claims of evidence. That's a long way short of accusation, but it's good enough for a Trump supporter, right?
I should have mentioned that he was never accused of collusion in a court of law.
But you will have evidence of such an accusation, right?
Like an article of impeachment?
If so produce. Now.
Watch him start the Trump Scamper, folks.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Al of those are claims of evidence. That's a long way short of accusation,
Maybe you have some special definition for "accusation?" It certainly meets the standard definition.
but it's good enough for a Trump supporter, right?
The only rebuttal I've seen is the standard fact check link that someone suggested. Those operations are complete nonsense for those who can't think.
I should have mentioned that he was never accused of collusion in a court of law.
That would have been more helpful, but I keep getting assure that if Trump doesn't die in office, he will be hunted down like an escaped convict by the Southern District of New York.
But you will have evidence of such an accusation, right?
We were assured that that would come as the result of the Mueller report. Did you have a stroke? None of this sounds familiar? Do you know what year it is?
Like an article of impeachment?
It was a completely transparent three and a half year lie, so it didn't make it into the impeachment, now did it?
If so produce. Now.
Really?
Watch him start the Trump Scamper, folks.
What a gift that God could give us, to see ourselves as others see us. But I get the feeling your delighted with your current level of introspection.
 

DieBrille

Member
Maybe you have some special definition for "accusation?" It certainly meets the standard definition.
I have the legal definition. Something that was submitted by prosecution in a court of law
There was never any such thing.
Collusion is not a crime except in anti trust law.
You really should stop listening to pig-ignorant guttersnipes on such matters.
The only rebuttal I've seen is the standard fact check link that someone suggested. Those operations are complete nonsense for those who can't think.

That would have been more helpful, but I keep getting assure that if Trump doesn't die in office, he will be hunted down like an escaped convict by the Southern District of New York.

We were assured that that would come as the result of the Mueller report. Did you have a stroke? None of this sounds familiar? Do you know what year it is?

It was a completely transparent three and a half year lie, so it didn't make it into the impeachment, now did it?

Really?

What a gift that God could give us, to see ourselves as others see us. But I get the feeling your delighted with your current level of introspection.
Produce the legal document where Trump was accused of collusion of admit you can't.
You are going down the same route as my first victim.
Please carry on!
 

Thistle

Well-known member
I have the legal definition. Something that was submitted by prosecution in a court of law
There was never any such thing.
Collusion is not a crime except in anti trust law.
You really should stop listening to pig-ignorant guttersnipes on such matters.
I've picked up on a little something in my years sojourning here. People with a real argument don't find the need to call people "pig-ignorant guttersnipes." Just a little tip you may find useful, or not, it's up to you.
Produce the legal document where Trump was accused of collusion of admit you can't.
I never suggested that constant allegation ever rose to the level of a legal charge. Given it took me exactly one post dispositively prove you completely wrong, you've chosen to change the argument. That won't work with me, because I'm not a blithering idiot. I'll mercifully forgo drawing the reasonable inference about you that is suggested by your thinking it would work.
You are going down the same route as my first victim.
Feeling dangerous, are we?
Please carry on!
That's adorable.
 

DieBrille

Member
I've picked up on a little something in my years sojourning here. People with a real argument don't find the need to call people "pig-ignorant guttersnipes." Just a little tip you may find useful, or not, it's up to you.
Already you are skunking . Trying to make this bout me.
I never suggested that constant allegation ever rose to the level of a legal charge.
Stop right there. I win. He was never charged with collusion.
Given it took me exactly one post dispositively prove you completely wrong, you've chosen to change the argument. That won't work with me, because I'm not a blithering idiot. I'll mercifully forgo drawing the reasonable inference about you that is suggested by your thinking it would work.
None of those people you quoted accused him of collusion. Collusion is not a crime outside of anti trust law. That's a fact bubba
There is nothing ANYWHERE that legally accuses the dolt of collusion. You looked inside the articles of impeachment, didn't you? What did you
find? Bupkiss. live with it.
Feeling dangerous, are we?
No. Victorious

That's adorable.
Here's your hanky.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Already you are skunking . Trying to make this bout me.
Just trying to show some interest. Win Friends Influence People, that sort of thing . . .
Stop right there. I win.
Congratulations!
He was never charged with collusion.
Charged is a perfectly good English word that has abundant application outside of legal proceedings. Any place you can use the word accuse you can use the word charge. The vast majority of charges people level against each other are not in courts of law. You took more than your share of the M&M's. That is a charge. So you're dispositively wrong.
None of those people you quoted accused him of collusion.
Quiz: The Trump campaign is an extension of what person?
Collusion is not a crime outside of anti trust law.
Quiz: The charge "Trump Russia Collusion" is intended to put Trump in what kind of light? A) Good or B) Bad
That's a fact bubba
I guess you determined my name is "bubba" the same way you determined that "charge" doesn't have an every day definition.
There is nothing ANYWHERE that legally accuses the dolt of collusion.
tumblr_owpk8z0tDT1uijsn1o2_400.gif

You looked inside the articles of impeachment, didn't you? What did you
find? Bupkiss. live with it.
My goodness!
Here's your hanky.
That's okay you can keep it.
 

Reepicheep

Active member
Biden is currently leading in Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia, and it appears Biden should take the lead in Pennsylvania sometime today. If these results hold, and Trump wins Alaska, North Carolina, and Maine District 2, then the final electoral vote count will be:

306 - Biden
232 - Trump


Interestingly, this is identical to the 2016 election result, with the parties reversed:

306 - Trump
232 - Clinton

Today, many newspapers (New York Times, Forbes, Toronto Sun) and news channels (CNN, ABC, CBS ) declared Biden the winner of Georgia, so the above electoral ballot count is pretty well final, unless recounts change the result in some states, which is almost certain not going to happen.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
Today, many newspapers (New York Times, Forbes, Toronto Sun) and news channels (CNN, ABC, CBS ) declared Biden the winner of Georgia, so the above electoral ballot count is pretty well final, unless recounts change the result in some states, which is almost certain not going to happen.
Yes, the results seem reliably final.

I loved the "shellacking" quote...
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Ha is right. You really don't know what an ad hominem argument is. I am suggesting that the Constitution may be out of date because those people who drafted it are unrepresentative of society today, one of the reasons being that they approved of slavery and many owned slaves. The criticism is not just true, but also relevant, rendering your cries of ad hominem invalid.

Since there is nothing "pro-slavery" in the actual Constitution, the argument certainly IS ad hominem.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Since there is nothing "pro-slavery" in the actual Constitution, the argument certainly IS ad hominem.
And if you expand the documents to the entire Organic Law of the United States, there is a lot that is relatively anti-slavery.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
You do know that the 13th amendment is explicitly ANTI-slavery, right?
Sheesh....
Except as punishment. What country would legitimise slavery as a punishment, then pass laws specifically aimed at black people? Are these up to date attitudes?
 
Top