Election Fraud In the California Recall – Man Arrested with a Gun, Drugs and Thousands of ballots.

LOL A date is a good or bad plan. That's silly.
AFAIK, a date isn't a plan. It's a day.

 

Provided already. It was more like 0.00001%. It's in this thread.

 

Sure. But just saying it was rigged without proof is pointless.

 

I wouldn't say it's pointless because:

(1) The success of American government depends on a free and fair election that accurately reflects American state voters.

Congress (or state legislatures) needs to hop to it right now, IMO. and vote on an idea to facilitate audits of close elections instead of the idea of lenient Democratic Party led federal elections governing all voting. Congress (or state legislatures) should also put into law the procedure to take if an audit of a close election results in a different election result. Of course, some state legislatures are doing just that but certain groups and individuals are bogusly calling this voter 'disenfranchisement'.

(2) There was this 2+ year investigation into the Trump Administration (and the 2 Trump impeachments) that were commenced w/o factual proof.

Hey, I agree with the premise of your post. What I'm saying is your premise should be followed in all political circumstances...and well, it's not.

 

That is rather obvious baloney.

This is the inconvenient truth:

"There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters. Moreover, the interest in orderly administration and accurate record keeping provides a sufficient justification for carefully identifying all voters participating in the election process. While the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable, the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear." (emphasis mine)
Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (200

 

Focus on: "out by"

Trump Plan: Out by May 1: The good plan.
Biden Plan: Out by Aug 31: The bad plan.

Get it now?

 

Yes, and if there's evidence of not a free or fair election, present evidence and have the courts decide and get an investigation going.
All the courts have said there's no good evidence.
You need proof to have a case, whining isn't a case.

(2) of your post. Yes, there was ample evidence. So much so, the 2nd impeachment was the most bipartisan impeachment in history.

...
PolitiFact rating: True. Trump’s second impeachment attracted more bipartisan support — 10 GOP floor votes in favor — than the impeachments of Andrew Johnson or Bill Clinton, or Trump’s first impeachment.

Discussion
No Republicans supported the first impeachment of Trump in 2019. It’s also higher than the five Democrats who voted to impeach President Bill Clinton on both successful counts in 1998. And it was more bipartisan than the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, which did not receive any Democratic support. (We’ll address President Richard Nixon, who resigned under threat of impeachment, as well.)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...bipartisan-e2-80-99-in-us-history/ar-BB1cR0uR

 

Focus on out by is a date. NOT A PLAN. Yimminie crickets.

I will be president of USA on 9/11/2021. That's great plan I have? LOL.

 

Nope, the data present was from the Heritage Foundation. A RW organization.

 

Like I posted and you can't refute: The Trump administration investigation and the two Trump impeachments were started w/o any factual evidence so why should we need factual evidence to start an investigation into the 2020 election?? BTW, a two week preliminary investigation to determine there's no need to investigate the 2020 isn't an investigation into the 2020. Heck, the 2016 election was more thoroughly investigated than the 2020 (because Trump won that one).

I mean for crying out loud, it's that important that all elections are free and fair for the sake of a smooth running American government.

 

Do you have dictionary?

The Trump plan was to withdraw by May 1.
1. Before the Taliban could launch another major offensive.
2. While we still controlled all of our bases and interference with the withdrawal was impossible.

 

LOL! You think the Heritage Foundation is more credible than the SCOTUS? I find that hard to believe.

"It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists,[Footnote 11] that occasional examples have surfaced in recent years,[Footnote 12] and that Indiana’s own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor[Footnote 13]—though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud—demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election."
Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (200

 

You actually expect to be taken seriously after typing that?

Let's take the first impeachment. The Democrats spent a week carefully laying out the factual evidence against Trump. The Republicans and the Trump team didn't even attempt a defense -- because clearly, they didn't have one. There was no arguing against the facts. They just did that "We're Republicans, therefore we excuse all Republican crimes and corruption" thing that they're so well-known for.

The two sides aren't alike. Your side launches fake investigations based on nothing, while our side follows hard evidence.

 

You mean the circumstancial (that you call factual) evidence?

 

I suppose you could offer up evidence for any and all your claims. That would be a start.

 

As of today, I am president. I stated a date. Therefore, according to you, it's official. The date is a plan.

 

Why do I need to offer up factual evidence to back up the need to start an investigation into the 2020?...Congresscritters didn't need to offer up any factual evidence congresscritters just used a whole lot of gossip and presupposition to commence the two impeachments and the investigation into the Trump campaign.

What I'm also saying is that when no factual evidence can be found to convict the Trump campaign, for example, the Trump campaign investigation needed to shut down and people needed to move on. I'm also saying that people need to use the very same parameters to determine if the Trump campaign needed to be investigated as they used to determine if the 2020 election needed to be investigated And they/you didn't use the very same parameters. I'm looking for some consistency.

I'm further saying it's just that important that the Trump campaign was investigated because free and fair elections are just that important to a smooth running American gov't. By the very same token, I think it's also important to investigate every close election win (the Biden win in 2020, for example) because it's also just that important that free and fair elections are performed to maintain a smooth running American gov't.

 

Why did US military say they were unable to fulfill the Trump Administration's demand of Afghani pullout of US troops by May 1, 2021? Trump was the Commander in Chief at that time, ya know. I think the Trump Administration and the Taliban reached this date of US troops pullout agreement in February of 2020...That was over a year for US military to be prepared for an Afghani pullout.
Why did US military agree with the Biden Administration to pullout US troops from Afghanistan by August 31, 2021? I mean, did it look like US military was prepared to pullout of Afghanistan by August 31, 2021?

I wonder, did US military elite want to pullout of Afghanistan at all?

 

Investigation into what in 2020?
Why would anyone waste time doing something or looking for something that isn't there? Az and Ga have done this. Nothing came of it.

I notice you have to deflect from your claim. So that shows your proof is weak and it is. Actually, its non existent according to you.

 

Why are you asking me about the US military?
Why didn't the pull out happen in 2020? If the agreement was signed in Feb 2020, that was 10 months to draw them out.

Maybe there were no good competent Generals left?

 

LOL! The Trump plan was:
1. to withdraw from Afghanistan.
2. and to finish the withdrawal before May 1.

The Biden administration cancelled the Trump plan for withdrawal. That decision was obviously an incredibly stupid blunder.
Hence your reaction.

 

The best time to withdraw was while heavy snow blocked the annual surge of Taliban fighters into Afghanistan from Pakistan.
The earlier the better, but the May 1 deadline, if it had been kept, would have made it impossible for the Taliban to effectively interfere with the withdrawal before it was completed. The only question left is why the Biden administration acted so foolishly.

 

Cancelled means it doesn't happen.
Postponed means, it is delayed.

A date isn't a plan, it's a time frame. A date. As I said.

 

I think you mean that so far there is no evidence.

And yes, the typical circular breathing among Conservative outlets.

 

Why? In a state with twice as many registered Democrats as Republicans and almost as many Independents as Republicans, the Republican party is a small minority within that state. We are talking 24% or slightly less than 1 in ever 4 voters. So, logic dictates that even with lackadaisical turnout among Democrats (and the early voting stats are pointing to just the opposite, to note), Newsom is not going to be recall. In fact, it's looking like a large landslide for the "NO" side, a margin so large that you can literally forget about people trying to bitch about fraud in a state that has some of the most strenuous precautions against fraud in the entire USA. So, your statement assumes facts not in evidence.