Politics Trump Claims Voters in Florida are Masters of Disguise

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
donkiez said:
Most of the Trumpers are waking up, the few that remain are holding on to their delusion with everything they have. It's hard to admit when your wrong, especially when you attached so much of you ego to it.
Click to expand...
All you say is Gospel True!
 
oldmangrouch said:
Please enlighten us. Are you saying Trump's claim is true?
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence it's not?

Obviously, Florida Dems have been rigging elections for nearly 2 decades, and been caught many times. The very people now "finding" extra votes and caught destroying others.
 
dviss1 said:
It's actually the American way.
Click to expand...

I would say you misspoke again. There have always been that sort of American, always overloading something.
It be best when it's just their mouth in gear and brain not. You can usually tell the difference by their frequency.
 
Last edited:
stampedehero said:
The Trump people are the puppets. Before they committed themselves to a Trump vote they should have done some research on Utube. His family,demeanor, attitude, his stupid apprentice show and lawsuits by contractors who worked in his business entities indicated to me he is the ultimate self serving ass hat of our times. Unfortunately, narcissists don't quit.
Click to expand...
So, Hillary's running again then?
 
MarAzul said:
I would say you misspoke again. There have always been that sort of American, always overloading something.
It be best when it's just their mouth in gear and brain not. You can usually tell the difference by their frequency.
Click to expand...

Assume you mean 540-1600 kHz.

barfo
 
BrianFromWA said:
so, I didn't see it posted anywhere else, but Gillum gained one vote in the recount. One.
Click to expand...

So I guess all that whining about how the recount was 'stealing the election' wasn't really very truthful.

barfo
 
BrianFromWA said:
so, I didn't see it posted anywhere else, but Gillum gained one vote in the recount. One. But the recount in Broward didn't get submitted in time, so by law it reverts to Saturday's original count. Same with Hillsborough, which didn't even submit the recount, and Palm Beach.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/new...ida-vote-recount-deadline-20181115-story.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...vails-over-andrew-gillum-governor/2006942002/
Click to expand...

Shame. There shouldn't be a deadline for a recount.
 
MarAzul said:
I would say you misspoke again. There have always been that sort of American, always overloading something.
It be best when it's just their mouth in gear and brain not. You can usually tell the difference by their frequency.
Click to expand...

WTF are you rambling about??
 
BrianFromWA said:
so, I didn't see it posted anywhere else, but Gillum gained one vote in the recount. One. But the recount in Broward didn't get submitted in time, so by law it reverts to Saturday's original count. Same with Hillsborough, which didn't even submit the recount, and Palm Beach.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/new...ida-vote-recount-deadline-20181115-story.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...vails-over-andrew-gillum-governor/2006942002/
Click to expand...

Rather sad to see time outs controlling the process there in Florida. Is there a hope for the rule of law to become the standard?
 
barfo said:
So I guess all that whining about how the recount was 'stealing the election' wasn't really very truthful.

barfo
Click to expand...
No, it was the "attempt to steal the election". Many "fraudulent"/ineligible votes weren't counted, though they were submitted. There are 7 lawsuits in play. I won't comment on those until they're settled, one way or the other. I was just talking about the recount, since it didn't seem anyone else had.

But I have to admit, that was a good canned response.
 
BrianFromWA said:
No, it was the "attempt to steal the election". Many "fraudulent"/ineligible votes weren't counted, though they were submitted. There are 7 lawsuits in play. I won't comment on those until they're settled, one way or the other. I was just talking about the recount, since it didn't seem anyone else had.

But I have to admit, that was a good canned response.
Click to expand...

The recount was mandated by law. How can you claim it was an attempt to steal the election?

barfo
 
dviss1 said:
Care to elaborate?

We do have a first amendment...
Click to expand...
We also have a Uniform Code of Military Justice.
There are primarily two (2) provisions of the UCMJ that relate to contemptuous statements against leaders, the first, 10 U.S.C. Section 888, Article 88, titled “Contempt Toward Officials” applies only to Commissioned Officers. The second, 10 U.S.C. Section 934, Article 134 is a General Article that will apply to enlisted personnel.
Article 88 provides:
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
The elements of this Article are as follows:
(1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;
(2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;
(3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and
(4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element
(5) That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.
Click to expand...
And even if you manage to stay away from the "strict" definition of "contemptuous", there's the "general article".

Meanwhile, Article 134 provides:

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

This article is peculiarly vague when compared to the vast majority of UCMJ provisions, and although extremely broad, it has survived several attacks on its constitutionality over the years since its inception to military law in 1775. In essence, Article 134 is a “catch-all” for any offenses that are not otherwise covered in any specific article of the UCMJ. Typically, an enlisted member of the armed forces will be charged with a violation of Article 134 for making disrespectful statements against civilian leaders or superiors on the ground that such statements are “disloyal”.
Click to expand...
 
barfo said:
The recount was mandated by law. How can you claim it was an attempt to steal the election?

barfo
Click to expand...
Don't worry, he is keeping an open mind about the "fraudulent attempt to steal an election" until the lawsuits are settled and he knows more. He doesn't already have his mind made up or anything like that.
 
barfo said:
The recount was mandated by law. How can you claim it was an attempt to steal the election?

barfo
Click to expand...
I didn't claim that the recount was an attempt to steal the election. You didn't like the "whining", and didn't pay attention (or chose not to) the "attempts to steal the election" that involve counting previously-uncounted votes (for whatever reason). Like the ones detailed in the lawsuits.

Sure, count up every legal vote. (Just did, and in the parlance of the NFL, "confirmed the ruling").
Make sure that shenanigans don't happen to unfairly influence the vote (a.k.a., "attempt to steal the election")

I can't fathom how you don't approve of this and are pejorative about it.
 
theprunetang said:
Don't worry, he is keeping an open mind about the "fraudulent attempt to steal an election" until the lawsuits are settled and he knows more. He doesn't already have his mind made up or anything like that.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
I didn't say that I don't think that the lawsuits are valid. I know it's different in Democratically-controlled-for-generations states, but people generally tend to investigate when multiple law-breakers have "irregularities" in their latest voting pattern. Not like you have your mind made up or anything. :cheers:
 
BrianFromWA said:
We also have a Uniform Code of Military Justice.
And even if you manage to stay away from the "strict" definition of "contemptuous", there's the "general article".
Click to expand...
I always considered this good guidance for any citizen. A free running mouth without a brain in command is a sorry display. A Right does not improve the tone, only unmistakable wisdom will carry the weight.
 
MarAzul said:
I always considered this good guidance for any citizen. A free running mouth without a brain in command is a sorry display. A Right does not improve the tone, only unmistakable wisdom will carry the weight.
Click to expand...
Personal insult.
 
BrianFromWA said:
I didn't claim that the recount was an attempt to steal the election. You didn't like the "whining", and didn't pay attention (or chose not to) the "attempts to steal the election" that involve counting previously-uncounted votes (for whatever reason). Like the ones detailed in the lawsuits.

Sure, count up every legal vote. (Just did, and in the parlance of the NFL, "confirmed the ruling").
Make sure that shenanigans don't happen to unfairly influence the vote (a.k.a., "attempt to steal the election")

I can't fathom how you don't approve of this and are pejorative about it.
Click to expand...

You brought up the recount. I said that people whined about the recount 'stealing the election'. Maybe you didn't claim the recount was an attempt to steal the election, but a whole bunch of people on your "team" did.

I'm in favor of counting every legal ballot, and only the legal ballots. Whether or not they were counted the first time.

barfo
 
barfo said:
You brought up the recount. I said that people whined about the recount 'stealing the election'. Maybe you didn't claim the recount was an attempt to steal the election, but a whole bunch of people on your "team" did.

I'm in favor of counting every legal ballot, and only the legal ballots. Whether or not they were counted the first time.

barfo
Click to expand...
Then we agree. The Supervisor of Broward County, sadly, does not. Which is why the irregularities (again) in her county caused people to question (whine?) about the recount. AFAIK, no one cared much if it was within the 0.5%, because it's awfully tough to find 25k or so votes just in uncounted valid ballots. But when Broward and Palm Beach were the only counties that didn't have all their votes counted when they were supposed to, it (don't you think legimately?) brough up concerns.
 
BrianFromWA said:
Then we agree. The Supervisor of Broward County, sadly, does not. Which is why the irregularities (again) in her county caused people to question (whine?) about the recount. AFAIK, no one cared much if it was within the 0.5%, because it's awfully tough to find 25k or so votes just in uncounted valid ballots. But when Broward and Palm Beach were the only counties that didn't have all their votes counted when they were supposed to, it (don't you think legimately?) brough up concerns.
Click to expand...

I'm not the supervisor of elections, I don't know if there was hanky panky or not. But a late vote count doesn't necessarily imply corruption, some places are just slow either due to understaffing or incompetence or bad machinery or extreme caution or whatever.

In any case, the purpose of a recount is to make sure they got it right the first time (or to correct it if they didn't).

The recount wasn't some sort of optional procedure. The law required it. And, as you point out, the lead was big enough that it was highly unlikely to change the winner.

barfo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top