Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Here is the real problem, there has been much anecdotal evidence of election irregularities in many different states; Georgia has video evidence of election watchers being forced out, windows blocked, and ballots recounted but submitted once, and the famous suitcases of mysterious ballots. Nevada has hundreds of fake addresses being found on absentee ballots. Even Idaho (a Trump state), had a 7% difference between absentee ballots and the number of envelopes containing those ballots. We also have the famous trailer full of ballots in Pennsylvania from New York. To answer these ends, we are having a full forensic recount in Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada. That means the participants do everything including verifying the envelopes, the signatures on the ballots, and then verify the identities of each voter who voted.
So, as to what Barr said; each state can do their own analysis and if they find that there was voter fraud on a significant scale to affect the election then the judge has to decide the appropriate remedy. Most times that does NOT include a new election. A new election costs money and time. It can also be said that an election six months after the fact is not a repeat of the election but an entirely different election. So that is the decision of each state. So Georgia and Arizona decide that there was sufficient voter fraud to change the outcome and a judge decides that a new election must be held. That's two states out of many. Other judges decide that in Nevada, Michigan, and Pennsylvania also decide that there was voter fraud but not enough to warrant an new election or they will not force the state to do a repeat. So the case could be made that even if Georgia and Arizona both flipped to Trump electoral votes it would not affect the outcome of the 2020 election. What would be the real point of having new elections? Almost have to put all the affected states in the basket in one case. That if a preponderance of the evidence indicted sufficient irregularities to change the outcome then all the states involved must have new elections. Then the danger to the power structure would be that Trump would garner enough electoral votes to have him declared the actual winner of the 2020 election. The democrats would challenge based on the idea that a new election is a different election and invalid. So what if a court decided that in the interest of justice Trump must be declared the winner. Of course, every executive order by Biden would be dismissed but what about legislation signed by Biden. How can you call back the trillion some dollars not already spent?
IF this occurred then would do you do about guilty parties? Someone did something illegal. Do you penalize the democrat party with a billion dollar fine? Who goes to prison? I'm sure we'll all hear about the "I was just following orders" defense. What kind of penalty would be appropriate? Exposure and probation? Fine only? Jail time? All of the above?
My opinion is that there were many intentional irregularities and someone should be held responsible criminally. Would it change the outcome of the election? I honestly don't know but we will never find out without a complete investigation.
I'll file this to re-do the Gore vs. Bush 2 election.....
what makes you so sure he's hiding something? he probably is but it's just that he's not as rich as he wants people to believe. nothing illegal about that.
i take it you believe that Congress and/or Cyrus Vance are going to find info that the IRS for 40+ years hasn't? if Trump has systematically "cheated" on his taxes do you think the IRS wouldn't have found it? they've audited the guy for the bulk of his adult life.
they haven't found anything. and to cut you off about his so-called "crime" of overinflated appraisals on his properties, lenders use their own appraisers they don't have to accept what Trump claims they are worth. and for tax purposes yet again what Trump clams his properties are worth is not what the State has to accept. all Trump can do is appeal it like any property owner.
let me ask you this .. if a lender accepts without an independent appraisal the value Trump clams and lends him money based on that is it illegal or just incompetent?
what makes you so sure he's hiding something? he probably is but it's just that he's not as rich as he wants people to believe. nothing illegal about that.
i take it you believe that Congress and/or Cyrus Vance are going to find info that the IRS for 40+ years hasn't? if Trump has systematically "cheated" on his taxes do you think the IRS wouldn't have found it? they've audited the guy for the bulk of his adult life.
they haven't found anything. and to cut you off about his so-called "crime" of overinflated appraisals on his properties, lenders use their own appraisers they don't have to accept what Trump claims they are worth. and for tax purposes yet again what Trump clams his properties are worth is not what the State has to accept. all Trump can do is appeal it like any property owner.
let me ask you this .. if a lender accepts without an independent appraisal the value Trump clams and lends him money based on that is it illegal or just incompetent?
His tax returns won’t reveal how wealthy he is. He already provided detailed financial statement when he was elected.
His tax returns won’t reveal how wealthy he is. He already provided detailed financial statement when he was elected.
exactly. meaning he complied with all campaign finance disclosure laws. releasing his returns is optional.
those disclosures do describe total assets and liabilities and unlike a tax return which only focuses on income per a certain year is a far greater indication of wealth.
too bad Rachael Madcow didn't know that, then she could have avoided embarrassing herself.
exactly. meaning he complied with all campaign finance disclosure laws. releasing his returns is optional.
those disclosures do describe total assets and liabilities and unlike a tax return which only focuses on income per a certain year is a far greater indication of wealth.
too bad Rachael Madcow didn't know that, then she could have avoided embarrassing herself.
but it was fun to watch
BAHHAAAAA
Whoooops! Trump paid 38 million in taxes the year she had. I’m going out on a limb here but Trump set her up. But Joey Bribes ducked 500.000 in taxes.
Here is the real problem, there has been much anecdotal evidence of election irregularities in many different states; Georgia has video evidence of election watchers being forced out, windows blocked, and ballots recounted but submitted once, and the famous suitcases of mysterious ballots. Nevada has hundreds of fake addresses being found on absentee ballots. Even Idaho (a Trump state), had a 7% difference between absentee ballots and the number of envelopes containing those ballots. We also have the famous trailer full of ballots in Pennsylvania from New York. To answer these ends, we are having a full forensic recount in Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada. That means the participants do everything including verifying the envelopes, the signatures on the ballots, and then verify the identities of each voter who voted.
So, as to what Barr said; each state can do their own analysis and if they find that there was voter fraud on a significant scale to affect the election then the judge has to decide the appropriate remedy. Most times that does NOT include a new election. A new election costs money and time. It can also be said that an election six months after the fact is not a repeat of the election but an entirely different election. So that is the decision of each state. So Georgia and Arizona decide that there was sufficient voter fraud to change the outcome and a judge decides that a new election must be held. That's two states out of many. Other judges decide that in Nevada, Michigan, and Pennsylvania also decide that there was voter fraud but not enough to warrant an new election or they will not force the state to do a repeat. So the case could be made that even if Georgia and Arizona both flipped to Trump electoral votes it would not affect the outcome of the 2020 election. What would be the real point of having new elections? Almost have to put all the affected states in the basket in one case. That if a preponderance of the evidence indicted sufficient irregularities to change the outcome then all the states involved must have new elections. Then the danger to the power structure would be that Trump would garner enough electoral votes to have him declared the actual winner of the 2020 election. The democrats would challenge based on the idea that a new election is a different election and invalid. So what if a court decided that in the interest of justice Trump must be declared the winner. Of course, every executive order by Biden would be dismissed but what about legislation signed by Biden. How can you call back the trillion some dollars not already spent?
IF this occurred then would do you do about guilty parties? Someone did something illegal. Do you penalize the democrat party with a billion dollar fine? Who goes to prison? I'm sure we'll all hear about the "I was just following orders" defense. What kind of penalty would be appropriate? Exposure and probation? Fine only? Jail time? All of the above?
My opinion is that there were many intentional irregularities and someone should be held responsible criminally. Would it change the outcome of the election? I honestly don't know but we will never find out without a complete investigation.
This entire post is a prime example of Confirmation Bias.
con·fir·ma·tion bi·as
noun: confirmation bias
the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.
Confirmation bias is our tendency to cherry-pick information that confirms our existing beliefs or ideas. Confirmation bias explains why two people with opposing views on a topic can see the same evidence and come away feeling validated by it. This cognitive bias is most pronounced in the case of ingrained, ideological, or emotionally charged views.
