David -- there's no comparison between challenging an election versus impeachment of someone not in office. Challenging election results in court is normal. E.g., Al Gore did it several times over.
Impeaching a President is remarkable. Impeaching a President not in office is completely unique and arguably unconstitutional.
Impeaching someone not in office is somewhere we don't want to go. If the Republicans take the House in 2022, would they have the power to impeach Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama? That would be allowable under the precedent set if Trump is impeached while out of office.
DiC: The 2000 election was decided because of one state that was so close that a recount was required by law and there was genuine doubt as to who had won. The controversy around this election was down to the president being a sociopath who cannot distinguish between fact and fiction. He said weeks before the election that he could only lose if the democrats cheated. Hence the ridiculous conspiracy theories about dead people voting in large numbers and hidden suitcases full of fraudulent vote It's now the day before the inauguration and Trump still hasn't conceded and never will. Gore conceded early December. Now the shocking events at the Capitol have emboldened some Republicans enough that they are admitting that Trump incited the riot. Both Mitch McConnell and Bill Barr have said this. For some reason you can't accept it.
J.D. - According to the Rasmussen daily poll, Trump's popularity is at 51% Approve, 48% Disapprove. https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history
It's quite unusual for a President this popular to lose re-election. This is one of several reasons to suspect that the election might have been won by fraud. The fraud has not been proven, but it hasn't really been disproven either. The point is, it's not unreasonable to suspect that there might be doubt.
"Impeaching someone not in office is somewhere we don't want to go. If the Republicans take the House in 2022, would they have the power to impeach Jimmy Carter..."
Trump was impeached while in office. You have gone way off the deep end on this one.
DiC: "it's not unreasonable to suspect that there might be doubt"
Trump didn't say "Gee, I feel like it's not unreasonable to suspect that there might be doubt" while riling up the rioters.
He lied to them. Repeatedly. For months. He told them that democracy had been stolen and that MAGA was the last line of defense. If you believed him, why weren't you out there defending democracy?
"I can find a poll where Trump has been above 50% approval" is not a compelling reason to incite a mob towards sedition.
Latzej - I was talking about conviction. The word "impeachment" is often used to mean impeachment and conviction.
David - Who should have the burden of proof: those who claim that the election was free of fraud or those who claim there was a lot of fraud? Why should we believe either of those propositions?
You evidently believe that the election was free of fraud (or, at least, free of significant fraud.) What's the basis for your belief? What facts and arguments would you advance to convince someone of your belief?
DiC: "I was talking about conviction. The word "impeachment" is often used to mean impeachment and conviction."
Hopefully you can see how silly it is to fear that Jimmy Carter could be impeached long after he left office because Trump was impeached while he was still in office. There is no slippery slope here.
DiC: "You evidently believe that the election was free of fraud (or, at least, free of significant fraud.) What's the basis for your belief? What facts and arguments would you advance to convince someone of your belief?"
Layzej - The refutation of claims made is not sufficient. Here's two big reasons why:
If a large number of fraudulent absentee ballots were added to the other ballots, there's no way after the fact to separate the fake ballots.
If there's fraud built into the computer program, that could only be detected by a very sophisticated audit of the computer by a team with exceptional expertise. This has not been attempted.
DiC:"If a large number of fraudulent absentee ballots were added to the other ballots, there's no way after the fact to separate the fake ballots."
Are you guessing, or have you studied the chain of custody procedures and controls that prevent this from happening? Can you please outline each of these procedures and how each could have been circumvented?
DiC:"If there's fraud built into the computer program, that could only be detected by a very sophisticated audit of the computer by a team with exceptional expertise. This has not been attempted."
David in Cal wrote: If a large number of fraudulent absentee ballots were added to the other ballots, there's no way after the fact to separate the fake ballots.
David, can you prove that the Trump campaign didn't sneak in a large number of fraudulent absentee ballots with his name in with the other ballots?
David A: "David, can you prove that the Trump campaign didn't sneak in a large number of fraudulent absentee ballots with his name in with the other ballots?"
Glad you agree with me, David. This type of fraud cannot be proved after the fact, regardless of who committed it.
Layzej - what kind of audit was performed? AFAIK it was not the kind of audit I was describing?
David in Cal wrote: Glad you agree with me, David. This type of fraud cannot be proved after the fact, regardless of who committed it.
I'm not agreeing with you, David. I asked you to prove that Trump's campaign DIDN'T commit fraud, not that it did. If you recall, that was what you asked me.
It's difficult to see this as anything other than trolling. Government agencies and local Republican election officials said said the result was sound. Your man lost and deservedly so. If nothing else he deserved to lose because his obsession with crowd size and his lack of humanity made him easily the countries biggest coronavirus superspreader.
JD wrote: It's difficult to see this as anything other than trolling. Government agencies and local Republican election officials said said the result was sound.
How do you know Dominion didn't recently invent teleporting technology, teleport out their fraudulent voting machines immediately after the votes were tallied, then immediately teleport in identical machines that contained the correct software?
You know, David in Cal, it's frustrating. There have been many times here when you've been right and I've been wrong and I've readily admitted it to you.
Then when you get into a clearly untenable position, like at 10:21 am above, you just go silent and hope it will blow over and everyone forgets about it. This has happened time and time again here.
I think you owe the same due diligence that I've given you.
DiC suggested that since we can't disprove fraud (an impossibility), then it is entirely appropriate for those in power to hold a vote to dismiss ballots cast for those elected to replace them.
It is ridiculous on it's face.
This isn't an argument that DiC is really interested in defending. It was only advanced to provoke a reaction. I was a sucker for getting into the weeds on this one. Well played DiC.
30 comments:
David -- there's no comparison between challenging an election versus impeachment of someone not in office. Challenging election results in court is normal. E.g., Al Gore did it several times over.
Impeaching a President is remarkable. Impeaching a President not in office is completely unique and arguably unconstitutional.
Impeaching someone not in office is somewhere we don't want to go. If the Republicans take the House in 2022, would they have the power to impeach Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama? That would be allowable under the precedent set if Trump is impeached while out of office.
Cheers
DiC: The 2000 election was decided because of one state that was so close that a recount was required by law and there was genuine doubt as to who had won.
The controversy around this election was down to the president being a sociopath who cannot distinguish between fact and fiction. He said weeks before the election that he could only lose if the democrats cheated. Hence the ridiculous conspiracy theories about dead people voting in large numbers and hidden suitcases full of fraudulent vote
It's now the day before the inauguration and Trump still hasn't conceded and never will. Gore conceded early December.
Now the shocking events at the Capitol have emboldened some Republicans enough that they are admitting that Trump incited the riot. Both Mitch McConnell and Bill Barr have said this. For some reason you can't accept it.
J.D. - According to the Rasmussen daily poll, Trump's popularity is at 51% Approve, 48% Disapprove. https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history
It's quite unusual for a President this popular to lose re-election. This is one of several reasons to suspect that the election might have been won by fraud. The fraud has not been proven, but it hasn't really been disproven either. The point is, it's not unreasonable to suspect that there might be doubt.
Cheers
"Impeaching someone not in office is somewhere we don't want to go. If the Republicans take the House in 2022, would they have the power to impeach Jimmy Carter..."
Trump was impeached while in office. You have gone way off the deep end on this one.
538 aggregates polls. Trump never polled above 50%.
He's currently at 38%.
It reminds me of a Jordan Kemper interview.
MAGA girl: People didn't vote for Joe Biden. The Dominion system voted for Joe Biden.
Kemper: You think it's possible that Hugo Chavez infiltrated the Dominion systems and changed the votes for Joe Biden?
MAGA girl: I think anything's possible.
Kemper: Do you think it's possible that a president who never polled above 50% lost the election and is sore about it?
MAGA girl: No. Absolutely not.
DiC: "The fraud has not been proven, but it hasn't really been disproven either."
Yes it has! Repeatedly! See this point by point refutation of false claims.
DiC: "it's not unreasonable to suspect that there might be doubt"
Trump didn't say "Gee, I feel like it's not unreasonable to suspect that there might be doubt" while riling up the rioters.
He lied to them. Repeatedly. For months. He told them that democracy had been stolen and that MAGA was the last line of defense. If you believed him, why weren't you out there defending democracy?
"I can find a poll where Trump has been above 50% approval" is not a compelling reason to incite a mob towards sedition.
It's quite unusual for a President this popular to lose re-election.
David, why do you think Trump was so popular?
Gallup has Trump's average job approval rating at 41%.
The lowest of any president. Ever.
But Trump just couldn't have lost... because polling?
I meant, what is the evidence Trump was popular?
The fraud has not been proven, but it hasn't really been disproven either.
How can you disprove something that doesn't exist? Asking seriously....
Latzej - I was talking about conviction. The word "impeachment" is often used to mean impeachment and conviction.
David - Who should have the burden of proof: those who claim that the election was free of fraud or those who claim there was a lot of fraud? Why should we believe either of those propositions?
You evidently believe that the election was free of fraud (or, at least, free of significant fraud.) What's the basis for your belief? What facts and arguments would you advance to convince someone of your belief?
Cheers
DiC: "I was talking about conviction. The word "impeachment" is often used to mean impeachment and conviction."
Hopefully you can see how silly it is to fear that Jimmy Carter could be impeached long after he left office because Trump was impeached while he was still in office. There is no slippery slope here.
DiC: "You evidently believe that the election was free of fraud (or, at least, free of significant fraud.) What's the basis for your belief? What facts and arguments would you advance to convince someone of your belief?"
How about this point by point refutation of false claims. compiled by the investigators.
Layzej - The refutation of claims made is not sufficient. Here's two big reasons why:
If a large number of fraudulent absentee ballots were added to the other ballots, there's no way after the fact to separate the fake ballots.
If there's fraud built into the computer program, that could only be detected by a very sophisticated audit of the computer by a team with exceptional expertise. This has not been attempted.
Cheers
David:
What's the proof there isn't a teacup orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars?
DiC: "If a large number of fraudulent absentee ballots were added to the other ballots, there's no way after the fact to separate the fake ballots."
Are you guessing, or have you studied the chain of custody procedures and controls that prevent this from happening? Can you please outline each of these procedures and how each could have been circumvented?
DiC: "If there's fraud built into the computer program, that could only be detected by a very sophisticated audit of the computer by a team with exceptional expertise. This has not been attempted."
You didn't even read the first point did you? An audit was performed.
David in Cal wrote:
If a large number of fraudulent absentee ballots were added to the other ballots, there's no way after the fact to separate the fake ballots.
David, can you prove that the Trump campaign didn't sneak in a large number of fraudulent absentee ballots with his name in with the other ballots?
Let's not forget the 'Brooks Brothers riot" 2000 where republikcans managed to stop a recount:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot
David A: "David, can you prove that the Trump campaign didn't sneak in a large number of fraudulent absentee ballots with his name in with the other ballots?"
Glad you agree with me, David. This type of fraud cannot be proved after the fact, regardless of who committed it.
Layzej - what kind of audit was performed? AFAIK it was not the kind of audit I was describing?
Cheers
Congratulations USA.You now have a new President, your 46th.
David in Cal wrote:
Glad you agree with me, David. This type of fraud cannot be proved after the fact, regardless of who committed it.
I'm not agreeing with you, David. I asked you to prove that Trump's campaign DIDN'T commit fraud, not that it did. If you recall, that was what you asked me.
Glad you agree with me, David.
It's difficult to see this as anything other than trolling. Government agencies and local Republican election officials said said the result was sound. Your man lost and deservedly so. If nothing else he deserved to lose because his obsession with crowd size and his lack of humanity made him easily the countries biggest coronavirus superspreader.
David in Cal wrote:
Layzej - what kind of audit was performed?
David, read the link, please. Layzej has given it here twice. Here it is again:
https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/secretary_raffensperger_announces_completion_of_voting_machine_audit_using_forensic_techniques_no_sign_of_foul_play
JD wrote:
It's difficult to see this as anything other than trolling. Government agencies and local Republican election officials said said the result was sound.
How do you know Dominion didn't recently invent teleporting technology, teleport out their fraudulent voting machines immediately after the votes were tallied, then immediately teleport in identical machines that contained the correct software?
Can you disprove that?
At first I thought that was the other David replying to me. Poe's law strikes again.
For the "skeptic", uncertainty is always large, and always breaks in their favour. It's the first law of "skepticism".
Layzej said...
For the "skeptic", uncertainty is always large, and always breaks in their favour. It's the first law of "skepticism".
I like this. Can I maybe steal it sometime?
It's all yours :)
Grazie!
You know, David in Cal, it's frustrating. There have been many times here when you've been right and I've been wrong and I've readily admitted it to you.
Then when you get into a clearly untenable position, like at 10:21 am above, you just go silent and hope it will blow over and everyone forgets about it. This has happened time and time again here.
I think you owe the same due diligence that I've given you.
I think J. D. is right. We were being trolled.
DiC suggested that since we can't disprove fraud (an impossibility), then it is entirely appropriate for those in power to hold a vote to dismiss ballots cast for those elected to replace them.
It is ridiculous on it's face.
This isn't an argument that DiC is really interested in defending. It was only advanced to provoke a reaction. I was a sucker for getting into the weeds on this one. Well played DiC.
Post a Comment