We interrupt this program for this important news bulletin
Comments
-
The first post you cited I merely said that it is not an official result. That was also true of Trump in 2016 but it was also not a close election.
The second post, I said it is irresponsible while there are open challenges. It did not hinge on state certification.
And the last post the election is not official or close to it, again I explained multiple times I mean that it is not close because it is contested and too close to call.
None of those were the case in 2016.
I have been clear on this matter, you continue to lie and twist like the liberal snake you are.
-
@reformed posted:
The first post you cited I merely said that it is not an official result. That was also true of Trump in 2016 but it was also not a close election.
You said Biden and Harris had not been "certified" as president- and vice-president-elect. How are presidents- and vice-presidents-elect "certified"?
Not a "close" election in 2016?
- In 2016, Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton by 0.3% in Michigan, and by 0.7% in both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania; a grand total of about 0.6% (78,000 votes) over the three states combined. Without the 40 electoral votes of those three states, Donald Trump would have lost the election. He LOST the national popular vote by 2.1% (approx. 2.9 million votes).
- In 2020, to-date, Joe Biden leads Donald Trump by 2.7% in Michigan, and 0.7% in both Wisconsin and Michigan; a grand total of 1.3% (212,000 votes) over the three states combined. Without the 40 electoral votes of those three states, Joe Biden would lose the election. Biden currently LEADS in the national popular vote by 3.0% (approx. 4.5 million votes).
So Trump's 0.6%, 78,000 combined vote edge in three battleground states in the 2016 election, whose popular vote he LOST by 2.1% WASN'T close, but Biden's 1.3%, 212,000 combined vote edge in those same three battleground states, an election whose national popular vote he currently LEADS by 3.0% IS close, even though all of Biden's margins are likely to grow throughout the rest of the vote counts, and Trump is not likely to flip ANY state Clinton won in 2016, while Biden may flip as many as FIVE 2016 Trump states???? Please explain.
The second post, I said it is irresponsible while there are open challenges. It did not hinge on state certification.
False.
You may not have meant what you wrote, but what you wrote was that it was "irresponsible for the networks to declare Biden a winner while there are open challenges and no state has certified that he has won." Basic grammar says your sentence meant the networks' irresponsibility hinged on the existence of "open challenges" "AND" the fact that "no state [had] certified that [Biden] won." Those are YOUR words. The conjunction "and" connecting "open challenges" and state certification is YOUR conjunction. YOUR sentence says your complaint about the networks hinged on BOTH "open challenges" "AND" state certification.
And the last post the election is not official or close to it, again I explained multiple times I mean that it is not close because it is contested and too close to call.
When is an election "official"? For you, it's obviously not when media outlet decision desks call it. So when is it "official"?
Too close to call? Back to the numbers: Trump's 0.6%, 78,000 combined vote edge in three battleground states in the 2016 election, whose popular vote he LOST by 2.1% WASN'T too close to call, but Biden's 1.3%, 212,000 combined vote edge in those same three battleground states, an election whose national popular vote he currently LEADS by 3.0% IS too close to call, even though all of Biden's margins are likely to grow throughout the rest of the vote counts, and Trump is not likely to flip ANY state Clinton won in 2016, while Biden may flip as many as FIVE 2016 Trump states???? Please explain.
I have been clear on this matter, you continue to lie and twist like the liberal snake you are.
Clearly hypocritical, perhaps. But not at ALL clear on the substance and ramifications of your argument.
I've lied? No. Not at all. I've quoted your posts, from which I've drawn logical and reasonable inferences and asked questions, most of which you've not answered directly.
I'm a "liberal snake"? Yeah, probably. We liberals aren't very creative when it comes to our animal kingdom heroes.
-
Bill in 2016 was the election contested? Was there wide evidence of voter fraud? No.
-
@reformed posted:
Bill in 2016 was the election contested? Was there wide evidence of voter fraud? No.
As both president-elect and then president, Donald Trump DID contest the 2016 election, claiming that he had lost the national popular vote only because illegals had voted (for example, THIS TWEET from November 2016). Once in office, Mr. Trump created an official government commission called the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity to look for voter fraud and other election irregularities. The commission existed from May 2017 to January 2018, when it disbanded without so much as a report, let alone the discovery of any evidence to support the president's claim. The White House destroyed all state voter data collected by the Commission.
So was the 2016 election contested? Not by the candidate who lost, but it was by the candidate who won. THAT candidate contested the election in the form of a false claim of widespread voter fraud.
In the 2020 election, the roles have reversed: This time it is the election's loser, not its winner, who is contesting, again on claims of widespread voter fraud.
Two facts connect the 2016 and 2020 elections: In BOTH cases, Donald Trump, not Mr. Trump's election opponent, contested the result, and did so with claims of voter fraud.
Actually, there is a third fact that connects those two elections: In both cases, Mr. Trump's claims of widespread voter fraud were baseless and false.
----------------------------------------------------------
I remind you of the questions I asked you in my previous post:
- You said Biden and Harris have not been "certified" (your word) as president- and vice-president-elect. How are presidents- and vice-presidents-elect "certified"?
- So Trump's 0.6%, 78,000 combined vote edge in three battleground states in the 2016 election, whose popular vote he LOST by 2.1% WASN'T close, but Biden's 1.3%, 212,000 combined vote edge in those same three battleground states, an election whose national popular vote he currently LEADS by 3.0% IS close, even though all of Biden's margins are likely to grow throughout the rest of the vote counts, and Trump is not likely to flip ANY state Clinton won in 2016, while Biden may flip as many as FIVE 2016 Trump states???? Please explain.
- When is an election "official"? (again, your word) For you, it's obviously not when media outlet decision desks call it. So when is it "official"?
-
Bill the fundamental difference in Trump's victory speech was it was not close electorally, there was no contest, and Clinton CONCEDED. It was then and only then that Trump gave a victory speech.
If Trump had conceded this election I would have no problem with Biden giving a victory speech. But the election is contested legally and votes are still being counted and Trump has opted for legal action instead of concession at this time.
No victory has happened for either candidate. Biden is also NOT the President-Elect today despite what the media says.
-
And YET AGAIN you move the proverbial goal posts:
- First, you said Biden/Harris weren't president- and vice-president-elect because they hadn't been "certified."
- Then you said the issue was the existence of "open challenges" to the election result and that "no state has certified that [Biden] won."
- Then you said the issue was that the election wasn't "official or even close to it."
- Then you said the issue was that this is a "contested," "close election," that is in litigation and does not yet have a "clear winner."
- Then you said the issue is "either" the lack of a "certification of victory" or "a clear and decisive win."
- Then you said the issue "did not hinge on state certification," but does relate to your assertion that the election is "too close to call."
- AND IN YOUR LATEST POST, to your scrapbook of defenses for your point of view you add the president's refusal to concede and the fact that "votes are still being counted."
It's like keeping track of who's on the field when all eleven players of both football teams change out after every play.
In my last post, from amidst all that variety I asked you to define two of the terms YOU used to explain your view: "certified" and "official." I asked how presidents- and vice-presidents-elect are "certified," (your word) and when a presidential election is "official" (again, your word). As is the case with basically every question I ever ask you, I ask those two questions again.
-
Already answered my position Bill.
-
@reformed posted:
Already answered my position Bill.
Not that I've noticed, but I may have missed it. Please provide links to the post(s) in which you reported your view of how presidents- and vice-presidents-elect are "certified" and when a presidential election outcome is "official."
-
No, I didn't answer it to your satisfaction, but I did answer.
-
@reformed posted:
No, I didn't answer it to your satisfaction, but I did answer.
TRANSLATION: I've asked you how presidents-elect and vice-presidents-elect are "certified" (your word), and you've never told me. And I've asked you when a presidential election outcome is "official" (again, your word), and you've never told me.
Then in my previous post, I asked for links to the post(s) in which you "answered" those questions. Since you say you HAVE answered them, such links should have been easy to provide. And yet you provided no such links.
You're right. You didn't answer to my satisfaction.
-
Wolfgang said, "what is more dangerous: the black sheep or the wolve in white sheep clothing?"
The truth be told, it's the White wolf in white sheep clothing. Unfortunately, he has taken off his "white sheep clothing" (hood?) and revealed his true self. He is a colossal embarrassment, stain, and shame on America's history. The outgoing President is like the "bad" kid in class. He got what he wanted, but lost what he had (cover). He would do anything to get attention and to be remembered in American History. He was no good from the beginning. How could any Christian follow or endorse this man, for anything, except unkindness and evil? Time is a revealer of truth and one's true colors. CM
-
Wolfgang said, "Did God have something to do with USA elections?"
Sir, you don't believe "God rules in the affairs of men"? You don't accept that "God sets up kings and take them down"? America needs to look at herself. There are lessons for her to learn and to unlearn. CM
-
Mr. Reformed,
Does someone owes Billy Coley an apology? Just because he "didn't have to eat a whole cow to know he has eaten a piece of beef"? Call him names for other matters, but not for his call, at the time, he made it. Just maybe some people have greater insight than others. Don't knock it, embrace it. Many people become like their leader, a denier of truth in the face of evolving reality. CM
-
The truth be told, it's the White wolf in white sheep clothing. Unfortunately, he has taken off his "white sheep clothing" (hood?) and revealed his true self. He is a colossal embarrassment, stain, and shame on America's history. The outgoing President is like the "bad" kid in class. He got what he wanted, but lost what he had (cover). He would do anything to get attention and to be remembered in American History. He was no good from the beginning. How could any Christian follow or endorse this man, for anything, except unkindness and evil? Time is a revealer of truth and one's true colors.
The swamp is still the swamp ... unfortunately, it almost looks as if most "politicians" in both parties are alligators ... as their taking off their covers and revealing of their true colors has now shown.
Welcome to more devastation and horrendous poverty for many of the people in the USA ... it will be a rude awakening when it becomes obvious that their new normality will be "Communist Democrat" ....😪
-
Wolfgang said, "Did God have something to do with USA elections?"
Sir, you don't believe "God rules in the affairs of men"?
Where in Scripture do you get the idea that "God rules in the affairs of men"? Did God rule when Adam sinned? Was God responsible for that "affair" and should be blamed (as Adam tried to do (remember his talk of "the woman YOU gave me ...") ??
You don't accept that "God sets up kings and take them down"?
I accept what Scripture teaches about that topic ...I do not accept that "God sets up ALL kings/rulers" (nor that God takes ALL of them down.
If you are of the opinion that God sets up all rulers, you obviously believe that Trump was set up by God? If so, why all that fighting against God from even before Trump was inaugurated and throughout his time in office? Did God not know what He was doing in setting up Trump??
What about the known women groper, corruption experienced Biden .... do you think God set him up to be USA president??
America needs to look at herself. There are lessons for her to learn and to unlearn. CM
Yes, indeed, your post shows rather clearly that there are lessons to learn for those who have been influenced / programmed as seems to be the case with many US citizens (and also citizens of other so-called "Western countries" under the same political brain washing system) ...
-
I fail to see why I owe him an apology?
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)