The Big Lie

 

In recent interviews, Liz Cheney has been calling President Trump’s insistence that the 2020 election was stolen “The Big Lie.” And over the weekend the mainstream media has been beside themselves over the forensic audit underway in Arizona. Today, President Trump decided to take those words and shove them back in the faces of spineless Republicans like her, Kevin McCarthy, and others by issuing the following statement:

Of course, Cheney doubled down on her assertions, and – much like every other Republican leader – has refused to actually debate the mountains of evidence most of us recognized immediately and have been daring others to examine ever since. One person who’s been front and center in all of this is Jenna Ellis, the president’s attorney who threw down a gauntlet of her own:
I love this, all of it. It reminds me that there are still a few people out there willing to have it out with the weak-kneed gatekeepers who care almost nothing about truth and even less about consequences. Will Cheney or any of the other media sycophants have the courage to debate any of our best and brightest on actual facts? Will conservative media outlets like Ricochet be willing to provide a forum?

This isn’t going away now, matter how much the hand-wringing NeverTrumpers want it to. I (and others like me) won’t sit quietly while these people desecrate our country and its laws. It’s beyond time to take a side on who is lying to whom. I stand with the president – not the usurper sitting in his chair, but the real one, who’s willing to call out a lie when he sees it, even if everyone else is afraid to.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 201 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. AdamSmithFan Inactive
    AdamSmithFan
    @AdamSmithFan

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):
    It’s not me who isn’t getting my facts from reliable sources. The arguments made by the Trump campaign or lawsuits on their behalf or in challenging elections laws, or however you want to characterise them, never reached the rhetoric of Ellis, Guiliani or Powell.

    Yes, lets talk about facts. According to the official results Biden got 3,461,221 in Pennsylvania and Trump got 3,379,005. Okay, lets see the ballots. Why won’t they allow us to audit them? Why is this the same case in every important swing state? Since when did transparency in elections become controversial?

    What are you taking about? If they delivered every single ballot to your house, you still wouldn’t believe it. What proof would be enough for you? Also why always the states Trump lost? Why no voter fraud in Texas? Florida? Or Ohio. Because everywhere Trump won was legit. Everywhere else was fraud. John Kerry, Hillary and Stacey Abrams called, they want their argument back. 

    • #61
  2. AdamSmithFan Inactive
    AdamSmithFan
    @AdamSmithFan

    philo (View Comment):

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment): You are right about the Texas case, that Scotus should have heard it as original jurisdiction. And they would have lost 9-0. That does not mean they should not have heard it, mind you. But the Court was never going to say that the interest of Texas were harmed by the actions of elections in other states.

    Through no great insight on your part, you are, in fact, correct here. And the facts as stated make the situation very telling and informative to Texas and the other states going forward.

    That this joke of a court, current and historically speaking, that sees no perversion of the Commerce Clause too gross to go along with would NEVER go along with (or even entertain) the clear and valid Texas argument in this case has set a course that will be very interesting in the coming years (or maybe even months). That they also insisted on signaling just how feckless they intend on being in preserving the foundational agreement between the states and how little they can be counted on to protect American liberty throughout those coming events should be very instructive to We the People.

    Congratulations.

    There was no valid Texas argument, if you want other states to be able to sue for the elections  in other states, congratulations you’re the Democrat and you should cheer on HR1

    • #62
  3. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment): You are right about the Texas case, that Scotus should have heard it as original jurisdiction. And they would have lost 9-0. That does not mean they should not have heard it, mind you. But the Court was never going to say that the interest of Texas were harmed by the actions of elections in other states.

    Through no great insight on your part, you are, in fact, correct here. And the facts as stated make the situation very telling and informative to Texas and the other states going forward.

    That this joke of a court, current and historically speaking, that sees no perversion of the Commerce Clause too gross to go along with would NEVER go along with (or even entertain) the clear and valid Texas argument in this case has set a course that will be very interesting in the coming years (or maybe even months). That they also insisted on signaling just how feckless they intend on being in preserving the foundational agreement between the states and how little they can be counted on to protect American liberty throughout those coming events should be very instructive to We the People.

    Congratulations.

    There was no valid Texas argument, if you want other states to be able to sue for the elections in other states, congratulations you’re the Democrat and you should cheer on HR1

    HR 1 forces the same rules on everyone.

    That is a very different argument from one state demanding another state abide by the ACTUAL RULES of their own state (not Texas’ rules).

    The entire case was a scotus case that required scotus to overrule a state supreme justice that gave their state’s executive the right to violate that state’s constitution. When the scotus refused to hear the case brought by that state’s legislature, Texas tried to bring a case. Because when one state alters the course of a national election by violating their own rules, it affect Texas just as much as it affects Pennsylvania. Also that it is the national constitution that requires state legislatures to set the terms of their elections. Which is also in the jurisdiction of SCOTUS.

    You draw a false equivalency. It is the state legislatures that have the constitutional right and duty to set election rules, not the national legislature.

    • #63
  4. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):
    It’s not me who isn’t getting my facts from reliable sources. The arguments made by the Trump campaign or lawsuits on their behalf or in challenging elections laws, or however you want to characterise them, never reached the rhetoric of Ellis, Guiliani or Powell.

    Yes, lets talk about facts. According to the official results Biden got 3,461,221 in Pennsylvania and Trump got 3,379,005. Okay, lets see the ballots. Why won’t they allow us to audit them? Why is this the same case in every important swing state? Since when did transparency in elections become controversial?

    What are you taking about? If they delivered every single ballot to your house, you still wouldn’t believe it. What proof would be enough for you? Also why always the states Trump lost? Why no voter fraud in Texas? Florida? Or Ohio. Because everywhere Trump won was legit. Everywhere else was fraud. John Kerry, Hillary and Stacey Abrams called, they want their argument back.

    Umm, is it so hard to believe that those bent on fraud would be selective about the states that they chose to influence?

    • #64
  5. AdamSmithFan Inactive
    AdamSmithFan
    @AdamSmithFan

    Stina (View Comment):

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment): You are right about the Texas case, that Scotus should have heard it as original jurisdiction. And they would have lost 9-0. That does not mean they should not have heard it, mind you. But the Court was never going to say that the interest of Texas were harmed by the actions of elections in other states.

    Through no great insight on your part, you are, in fact, correct here. And the facts as stated make the situation very telling and informative to Texas and the other states going forward.

    That this joke of a court, current and historically speaking, that sees no perversion of the Commerce Clause too gross to go along with would NEVER go along with (or even entertain) the clear and valid Texas argument in this case has set a course that will be very interesting in the coming years (or maybe even months). That they also insisted on signaling just how feckless they intend on being in preserving the foundational agreement between the states and how little they can be counted on to protect American liberty throughout those coming events should be very instructive to We the People.

    Congratulations.

    There was no valid Texas argument, if you want other states to be able to sue for the elections in other states, congratulations you’re the Democrat and you should cheer on HR1

    HR 1 forces the same rules on everyone.

    That is a very different argument from one state demanding another state abide by the ACTUAL RULES of their own state (not Texas’ rules).

    The entire case was a scotus case that required scotus to overrule a state supreme justice that gave their state’s executive the right to violate that state’s constitution. When the scotus refused to hear the case brought by that state’s legislature, Texas tried to bring a case. Because when one state alters the course of a national election by violating their own rules, it affect Texas just as much as it affects Pennsylvania. Also that it is the national constitution that requires state legislatures to set the terms of their elections. Which is also in the jurisdiction of SCOTUS.

    You draw a false equivalency. It is the state legislatures that have the constitutional right and duty to set election rules, not the national legislature.

    That’s nonsense on stilts. I did not say it was the same as HR1. It was the argument  that other states can sue that they were harmed by the election of another state. Elections for president are not national elections. The states choose electors whatever way they want and if PA acted in bad faith, that up to the people of PA and their courts, not Texas. Would you accept that California could sue based on ballot initiatives in red states on transgenderism? 

    • #65
  6. AdamSmithFan Inactive
    AdamSmithFan
    @AdamSmithFan

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):
    It’s not me who isn’t getting my facts from reliable sources. The arguments made by the Trump campaign or lawsuits on their behalf or in challenging elections laws, or however you want to characterise them, never reached the rhetoric of Ellis, Guiliani or Powell.

    Yes, lets talk about facts. According to the official results Biden got 3,461,221 in Pennsylvania and Trump got 3,379,005. Okay, lets see the ballots. Why won’t they allow us to audit them? Why is this the same case in every important swing state? Since when did transparency in elections become controversial?

    What are you taking about? If they delivered every single ballot to your house, you still wouldn’t believe it. What proof would be enough for you? Also why always the states Trump lost? Why no voter fraud in Texas? Florida? Or Ohio. Because everywhere Trump won was legit. Everywhere else was fraud. John Kerry, Hillary and Stacey Abrams called, they want their argument back.

    Umm, is it so hard to believe that those bent on fraud would be selective about the states that they chose to influence?

    Yea they chose states with republican governors but not deep blue Maine. They use the big cities in PA MI and GA to cheat but not Texas. They oppose appointing judges by Trump who rule in their favour. They also only cheated on the top of the ballot but didn’t with house races. It’s an amazing conspiracy in fairness.

    • #66
  7. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment): It was the argument  that other states can sue that they were harmed by the unconstitutional activities of another state.

    FIFY.

    • #67
  8. AdamSmithFan Inactive
    AdamSmithFan
    @AdamSmithFan

    philo (View Comment):

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment): It was the argument that other states can sue that they were harmed by the unconstitutional activities of another state.

    FIFY.

    Yes, so the people of PA were harmed by that it there was an unconstitutional activity. Not the people of Texas. Again, would you support blue states overturning red states elections due to voter suppression or gerrymander or some other progressive nonsense? 

    • #68
  9. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):
    That’s nonsense on stilts. I did not say it was the same as HR1. It was the argument  that other states can sue that they were harmed by the election of another state. Elections for president are not national elections. The states choose electors whatever way they want and if PA acted in bad faith, that up to the people of PA and their courts, not Texas. Would you accept that California could sue based on ballot initiatives in red states on transgenderism? 

    You keep drawing analogies that you think make sense but don’t. If PA elected their national congress critters against their laws, then Texas has no say. But the presidency is not just about that state. It affects us all. Now figure out why your stupid California example does not apply.

    • #69
  10. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment): It was the argument that other states can sue that they were harmed by the unconstitutional activities of another state.

    FIFY.

    Yes, so the people of PA were harmed by that it there was an unconstitutional activity. Not the people of Texas. Again, would you support blue states overturning red states elections due to voter suppression or gerrymander or some other progressive nonsense?

    We were all affected by PA breaking the rules. In case you haven’t noticed, we are all affected by senile war monger being in charge of the big red button. Everyone is harmed by every policy he writes. We are all harmed by his presidency. Get a clue.

    • #70
  11. AdamSmithFan Inactive
    AdamSmithFan
    @AdamSmithFan

    Stina (View Comment):

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):
    That’s nonsense on stilts. I did not say it was the same as HR1. It was the argument that other states can sue that they were harmed by the election of another state. Elections for president are not national elections. The states choose electors whatever way they want and if PA acted in bad faith, that up to the people of PA and their courts, not Texas. Would you accept that California could sue based on ballot initiatives in red states on transgenderism?

    You keep drawing analogies that you think make sense but don’t. If PA elected their national congress critters against their laws, then Texas has no say. But the presidency is not just about that state. It affects us all. Now figure out why your stupid California example does not apply.

    The presidency effects everybody, how said president is elected is a matter for each individual state, the whole point of the California analogy is if we go with your logic, there’s nothing to stop California doing that. Just because you’re effected by the president, does not mean you are harmed by how each state allocates its electors.

    • #71
  12. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):
    It’s not me who isn’t getting my facts from reliable sources. The arguments made by the Trump campaign or lawsuits on their behalf or in challenging elections laws, or however you want to characterise them, never reached the rhetoric of Ellis, Guiliani or Powell.

    Yes, lets talk about facts. According to the official results Biden got 3,461,221 in Pennsylvania and Trump got 3,379,005. Okay, lets see the ballots. Why won’t they allow us to audit them? Why is this the same case in every important swing state? Since when did transparency in elections become controversial?

    What are you taking about? If they delivered every single ballot to your house, you still wouldn’t believe it. What proof would be enough for you? Also why always the states Trump lost? Why no voter fraud in Texas? Florida? Or Ohio. Because everywhere Trump won was legit. Everywhere else was fraud. John Kerry, Hillary and Stacey Abrams called, they want their argument back.

    Umm, is it so hard to believe that those bent on fraud would be selective about the states that they chose to influence?

    Yea they chose states with republican governors but not deep blue Maine. They use the big cities in PA MI and GA to cheat but not Texas. They oppose appointing judges by Trump who rule in their favour. They also only cheated on the top of the ballot but didn’t with house races. It’s an amazing conspiracy in fairness.

    You’re really rather argumentative aren’t you?  How interesting that you want to debunk conspiracy talk by asking why the conspiracy wasn’t bigger?

    BTW, the correct answer to my question is: “No, it’s not that hard to believe.”  You get an “incomplete.”

    • #72
  13. AdamSmithFan Inactive
    AdamSmithFan
    @AdamSmithFan

    Stina (View Comment):

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment): It was the argument that other states can sue that they were harmed by the unconstitutional activities of another state.

    FIFY.

    Yes, so the people of PA were harmed by that it there was an unconstitutional activity. Not the people of Texas. Again, would you support blue states overturning red states elections due to voter suppression or gerrymander or some other progressive nonsense?

    We were all affected by PA breaking the rules. In case you haven’t noticed, we are all affected by senile war monger being in charge of the big red button. Everyone is harmed by every policy he writes. We are all harmed by his presidency. Get a clue.

    You are affected by the president, you are not affected by how an individual state allocates its electors. Same reason, other states couldn’t overturn Florida in 2000. Which btw was the argument of progressives then. So congrats you sound like Al Gore.

    • #73
  14. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):
    Again, would you support blue states overturning red states elections due to voter suppression or gerrymander or some other progressive nonsense? 

    No, I support states following their own constitution and the US Constitution. When some states refuse to do this it violates the compact that established the Republic. It has nothing to do with voter suppression and gerrymandering…but you know that and insist on this rather dense approach to a fake argument. Quite telling.

    • #74
  15. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    How far our national moral civics have fallen.

    It would appear that cheating doesn’t harm others. Only oneself. What an argument.

    • #75
  16. AdamSmithFan Inactive
    AdamSmithFan
    @AdamSmithFan

    philo (View Comment):

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):
    Again, would you support blue states overturning red states elections due to voter suppression or gerrymander or some other progressive nonsense?

    No, I support states following their own constitution and the US Constitution. When some states refuse to do this it violates the compact that established the Republic. It has nothing to do with voter suppression and gerrymandering…but you know that and insist on this rather dense approach to a fake argument. Quite telling.

    Next time Dems lose which I think will almost certainly be ‘24, they will howl and how voter suppression. I take you’ll support the right of New York to sue Georgia or Texas to have its elections thrown out?

    • #76
  17. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):
    Again, would you support blue states overturning red states elections due to voter suppression or gerrymander or some other progressive nonsense?

    No, I support states following their own constitution and the US Constitution. When some states refuse to do this it violates the compact that established the Republic. It has nothing to do with voter suppression and gerrymandering…but you know that and insist on this rather dense approach to a fake argument. Quite telling.

    Next time Dems lose which I think will almost certainly be ‘24, they will howl and how voter suppression. I take you’ll support the right of New York to sue Georgia or Texas to have its elections thrown out?

    Not if Georgia and Texas did not violate their own constitution or the US Constitution. It cannot be made any clearer. Playing dumb is beneath you…

    • #77
  18. AdamSmithFan Inactive
    AdamSmithFan
    @AdamSmithFan

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):
    It’s not me who isn’t getting my facts from reliable sources. The arguments made by the Trump campaign or lawsuits on their behalf or in challenging elections laws, or however you want to characterise them, never reached the rhetoric of Ellis, Guiliani or Powell.

    Yes, lets talk about facts. According to the official results Biden got 3,461,221 in Pennsylvania and Trump got 3,379,005. Okay, lets see the ballots. Why won’t they allow us to audit them? Why is this the same case in every important swing state? Since when did transparency in elections become controversial?

    What are you taking about? If they delivered every single ballot to your house, you still wouldn’t believe it. What proof would be enough for you? Also why always the states Trump lost? Why no voter fraud in Texas? Florida? Or Ohio. Because everywhere Trump won was legit. Everywhere else was fraud. John Kerry, Hillary and Stacey Abrams called, they want their argument back.

    Umm, is it so hard to believe that those bent on fraud would be selective about the states that they chose to influence?

    Yea they chose states with republican governors but not deep blue Maine. They use the big cities in PA MI and GA to cheat but not Texas. They oppose appointing judges by Trump who rule in their favour. They also only cheated on the top of the ballot but didn’t with house races. It’s an amazing conspiracy in fairness.

    You’re really rather argumentative aren’t you? How interesting that you want to debunk conspiracy talk by asking why the conspiracy wasn’t bigger?

    BTW, the correct answer to my question is: “No, it’s not that hard to believe.” You get an “incomplete.”

    Simply pointing out that your conspiracy makes no sense. So Democrats sat down in a dark room somewhere and said where will we cheat, oh I know, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia and Arizona. But we won’t in Texas where we control every major city, or Ohio likewise or use our advantage in the cities of Florida. We’ll also only cheat in the presidential election and we’ll purposely lose loads of house seats. plus we won’t steal the senate seat in Maine, which is a bright blue state or steal the electoral vote there either. We’ll also have to rely on the republican governors of Arizona and Georgia to pull this off and we’ll have to get lots of federal judges appointed by republicans to back us up. It’s clever stuff in fairness, those dastardly Democrats!! They’ve got it all sown up. 

    • #78
  19. AdamSmithFan Inactive
    AdamSmithFan
    @AdamSmithFan

    philo (View Comment):

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):
    Again, would you support blue states overturning red states elections due to voter suppression or gerrymander or some other progressive nonsense?

    No, I support states following their own constitution and the US Constitution. When some states refuse to do this it violates the compact that established the Republic. It has nothing to do with voter suppression and gerrymandering…but you know that and insist on this rather dense approach to a fake argument. Quite telling.

    Next time Dems lose which I think will almost certainly be ‘24, they will howl and how voter suppression. I take you’ll support the right of New York to sue Georgia or Texas to have its elections thrown out?

    Not if Georgia and Texas did not violate their own constitution or the US Constitution. It cannot be made any clearer. Playing dumb is beneath you…

    Voter suppression doesn’t violate the constitution? I don’t think there is such a thing before you accuse me of that too. But you can’t have it both way. Fraud with no proof should allow Texas to sue PA but voter suppression should not allow blue states to sue.

    • #79
  20. Vince Guerra Inactive
    Vince Guerra
    @VinceGuerra

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):
    What are you taking about? If they delivered every single ballot to your house, you still wouldn’t believe it. What proof would be enough for you? Also why always the states Trump lost? Why no voter fraud in Texas? Florida? Or Ohio.

    I’m talking about looking at the ballots from the states that were questionable because a) the violated the law by kicking out Republican poll watchers b) they stopped counting in the middle of the night and then found just enough votes to put Biden over the top  c) they have no chain of custody for the votes they found d) they won’t let anyone examine the voting machines.   We can look at them all if you want to but let’s start in the states where all of that occurred.

    Journalism rule #1: It didn’t happen unless you can confirm it. Biden needs to confirm he got the votes in order to put this to rest and validate the certifications. He hasn’t done that, and in fact has stonewalled, threatened, harassed, and in some cases even prosecuted anyone who’s tried to do that. That should alarm you.

    Why not look? What are they afraid of? What are you afraid of?

    • #80
  21. AdamSmithFan Inactive
    AdamSmithFan
    @AdamSmithFan

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):
    What are you taking about? If they delivered every single ballot to your house, you still wouldn’t believe it. What proof would be enough for you? Also why always the states Trump lost? Why no voter fraud in Texas? Florida? Or Ohio.

    I’m talking about looking at the ballots from the states that were questionable because a) the violated the law by kicking out Republican poll watchers b) they stopped counting in the middle of the night and then found just enough votes to put Biden over the top c) they have no chain of custody for the votes they found d) they won’t let anyone examine the voting machines. We can look at them all if you want to but let’s start in the states where all of that occurred. Journalism rule #1: It didn’t happen unless you can confirm it. Biden needs to confirm he got the votes in order to put this to rest and validate the certifications. He hasn’t done that, and in fact has stonewalled, threatened, harassed, and in some cases even prosecuted anyone who’s tried to do that. That should alarm you.

    Lots of those issues have been adjudicated in court. I can’t help you that you won’t accept that. That’s my point, no proof is enough, short of Trump won. They could ship every ballot to your door and I’m sure you’d still find something that was wrong. As I said Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary, Stacey Abrams and Trump. All can’t accept they lost and their supporters won’t either. 

    • #81
  22. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Flicker (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) (View Comment):

    Jenna Ellis has settled on an undefeatable argument (which I happen to share). If she can get Trump and his circle to stick with that argument, it will help convince more people that Biden is not a legitimate president. I am not sure that re-using “the big lie” is helpful. I like reserving Holocaust terminology for the original events.

    There are a few undefeatable arguments one could make. I prefer this one: You claim you won. Prove it.

    Well, the Secretaries of State from 50 states and DC all certified their vote totals and while there were 60+ lawsuits before 90+ judges, not a single judge changed a single vote. This is such a far reaching conspiracy that there is no evidence of it that can be found!

    So far nobody on Biden’s side is willing to do that and nobody in the GOP establishment is willing to demand it.

    Oh, there is a test coming. The Dominion Lawsuit has forced FNC and OANN to back down on their crazy conspiracies and Dominion will crush Mike Lindell like a grape. Happy hunting.

    Again, prove it…with actual ballots that we can touch. You don’t have them. The state legislatures don’t have them. Judges don’t have them. Do you know why? Because they don’t exist which is what Arizona is about to prove.

    Vince, you know he was a lawyer. Give him his props.

    Just kidding.

    “He won, Your Honor.”

    “Okay, do you have evidence of this?”

    “Yes, but you can’t see it.”

    “Then how do I know it exists?”

    “Because we said so, Your Honor.”

    “Oh, the Because We Said So defense? Fine, you win.”

    They didn’t just SAY so. They CERTIFIED it!

    “Certified” is such a complex and multifaceted word, layered with nuance, that only a lawyer can claim to understand it.

    There you go.

    • #82
  23. Jim Beck Inactive
    Jim Beck
    @JimBeck

    Evening,

    As an example of the difficulties of court action and media deceit Mollie Hemingway

    https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/17/medias-entire-georgia-narrative-is-fraudulent-not-just-the-fabricated-trump-quotes/

    We do not know what exactly happened, we do know that something smells.  In the 2016 election 4% of the mail-in votes were found to be invalid due to problems with the signature, 40% of the votes were mail-in.  In 2020 les than .5% of mail-in votes were disqualified due to problems with signatures, 60% of votes were mail-in.  This smells.  The media is selling the narrative of election integrity, to believe the media is to be politically foolish.

    • #83
  24. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Jim Beck (View Comment):

    Evening,

    As an example of the difficulties of court action and media deceit Mollie Hemingway

    https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/17/medias-entire-georgia-narrative-is-fraudulent-not-just-the-fabricated-trump-quotes/

    We do not know what exactly happened, we do know that something smells. In the 2016 election 4% of the mail-in votes were found to be invalid due to problems with the signature, 40% of the votes were mail-in. In 2016 les than .5% of mail-in votes were disqualified due to problems with signatures, 60% of votes were mail-in. This smells. The media is selling the narrative of election integrity, to believe the media is to be politically foolish.

    There are all kinds of wild statistics like this. The controls on absentee ballots were awful in multiple ways.

    • #84
  25. Vince Guerra Inactive
    Vince Guerra
    @VinceGuerra

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):
    That’s my point, no proof is enough, short of Trump won.

    What proof do you have that Biden won? Them saying so?

    Let us look at the 3,461,221 ballots he got from Pennsylvania and we’ll walk away. This isn’t that hard.

    • #85
  26. AdamSmithFan Inactive
    AdamSmithFan
    @AdamSmithFan

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):
    That’s my point, no proof is enough, short of Trump won.

    What proof do you have that Biden won? Them saying so?

    Let us look at the 3,461,221 ballots he got from Pennsylvania and we’ll walk away. This isn’t that hard.

    No you’re right actually. I concede. Congrats to Trump on his victory. One for the ages like that of Presidents Gore, Kerry and Hillary. 

    • #86
  27. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    I am such a huge fan of that fraudulent F. The left did such a hack job on stealing an election, they created the Fake Election meme.

    I have lost so much respect for so many people over the insistence that this was a perfectly legitimate election.

    Same. I’ve lost even more for those who flippantly say things like, “Sure there was probably fraud, just not enough to make a real difference,” and then just move along and accept all of the crimes that aren’t even in dispute, like kicking out poll watchers.

    Georgia admitted that 400,000 ballots didn’t have a chain of custody.

    Why are there any ballots without a chain of custody?

    Exactly.  Mail-in ballots are rife for fraud or for ballots being “lost” if it’s a red district . . .

    • #87
  28. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Stad (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    I am such a huge fan of that fraudulent F. The left did such a hack job on stealing an election, they created the Fake Election meme.

    I have lost so much respect for so many people over the insistence that this was a perfectly legitimate election.

    Same. I’ve lost even more for those who flippantly say things like, “Sure there was probably fraud, just not enough to make a real difference,” and then just move along and accept all of the crimes that aren’t even in dispute, like kicking out poll watchers.

    Georgia admitted that 400,000 ballots didn’t have a chain of custody.

    Why are there any ballots without a chain of custody?

    Exactly. Mail-in ballots are rife for fraud or for ballots being “lost” if it’s a red district . . .

    Anyone who thinks that mail carriers etc are above reproach, I’ve found discarded mail more than once, that the carriers evidently just didn’t want to bother delivering.  How much more motivating could it be if they thought doing so might help a preferred candidate to win election?

    • #88
  29. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment):
    It’s not me who isn’t getting my facts from reliable sources. The arguments made by the Trump campaign or lawsuits on their behalf or in challenging elections laws, or however you want to characterise them, never reached the rhetoric of Ellis, Guiliani or Powell.

    Yes, lets talk about facts. According to the official results Biden got 3,461,221 in Pennsylvania and Trump got 3,379,005. Okay, lets see the ballots. Why won’t they allow us to audit them? Why is this the same case in every important swing state? Since when did transparency in elections become controversial?

    What are you taking about? If they delivered every single ballot to your house, you still wouldn’t believe it. What proof would be enough for you? Also why always the states Trump lost? Why no voter fraud in Texas? Florida? Or Ohio. Because everywhere Trump won was legit. Everywhere else was fraud. John Kerry, Hillary and Stacey Abrams called, they want their argument back.

    Umm, is it so hard to believe that those bent on fraud would be selective about the states that they chose to influence?

    Yea they chose states with republican governors but not deep blue Maine. They use the big cities in PA MI and GA to cheat but not Texas. They oppose appointing judges by Trump who rule in their favour. They also only cheated on the top of the ballot but didn’t with house races. It’s an amazing conspiracy in fairness.

    Have you ever worked an election?  Been part of the party mechanism that gets elections done?  Run polls?  From what I can tell I have never been in an honest one.  They all cheat.  Though in my area all the cheating is done by the Democrats since the Republicans can field enough of an effort.  But the rigging tends to be more of a thumb on the scales thing.  Done here and there as needed to get certain things done or certain people in.  You have to remember the parties are not one group like a company but work more like gangs or organized crime with crews doing various things to help themselves and kick it back to higher level.  I have seen it in my area all my life at the local, county and state levels, it was not until Obama that I could feel it at the national level.  

    • #89
  30. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    AdamSmithFan (View Comment): Voter suppression…

    Interesting that you keep trying to twist my position into something it is not while employing the terminology of the left. Color me suspicious…

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.