Ilov80s
Footballguy
Actually Trump gained 12 votes in the hand recount. We need to order a total do over of the National election until we get it perfect.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
How Much Voter Fraud Happened In 2020? (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
JAA
Footballguy
Why aren't we calling for seizure of all Dominion voting machines in all states? Why only the ones where POTUS lost? Isn't this about ensure complete election integrity?
shader
Footballguy
Flynn is freely associating and mingling with people who are calling for Trump to declare martial law, "cross the rubicon", and stay in office by force.
Whether he himself is actually saying it or not, he's given a lot of direct support to the Q movement, and to social media "influencers" that want Trump to essentially force his way into the presidency.
There are two types of people right now on the right that are still fighting.
1. Those fighting for Trump to prove fraud and use the 2nd batch of electoral votes to force chaos on January 6th when Pence as president of the Senate officially presides.
2. Those wanting Trump to declare a national emergency, arrest the traitors, declare martial law, and essentially take over the country.
Flynn has given a lot of support to people in both of the above groups, whether he did it in this interview or not.
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
And just to confirm, the only 4 contested states are the ones where Trump lost and the margins of the losses were larger than the ones Hillary had in 2016 yet there was no threat to enforce martial law. Got it.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
I mean, if you have a problem with who Flynn is freely associating and mingling with, that's kind of a different conversation.
My issue is with this repeated pattern:
Person A: Makes discussion worthy statement
Person B: Mischaracterizes or misquotes statement.
Media: Reports and comments on Bs misquote.
FBG: zomg looks what A said!
Me: A didn't say that.
Rinse, repeat.
It's not that hard to listen to an interview (or read a tweet) and discuss what an individual actually says.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
I have no idea what point you're trying to make but it has nothing to do with anything I've commented on or anything I believe. But thanks.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
I don't agree with this at all - but at least its a legitimate opinion and worth discussing.
i personally believe that those who want to "force chaos" are a fringe minority. And those who want martial law are even smaller in number and more fringe imo.
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
I saw a bumper sticker today "Trump is our president!". :(
JAA
Footballguy
Any ideas why POTUS is not denouncing the fringe minorities? Including his GB Mr Flynn?
the moops
Footballguy
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
OK. The Mods agree with you. Thread I started on court challenges got deleted so I don't want to get too into it here. I don't need another time out. But do you think the reactions to the misquotes are also not discussion worthy? Or only the original statement?
Sea Duck
Footballguy
People in this thread have attempted to discuss what Flynn actually said. You responded by changing the subject and making accusations without evidence.
Sea Duck
Footballguy
Flynn's statement is "discussion worthy" in the sense that he was factually wrong and should be corrected. It's also "discussion worthy" in the sense that he is dangling wishcasty scenarios for a vulnerable audience eager to consume the slightest hint of deliverance.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
sigh. Wrong again.
Sinn Fein posted an Aaron Rupar tweet misquoting Flynn. I responded by completing the actual quote from Flynn.
Sea Duck
Footballguy
Rupar didn't misquote Flynn.
Please stop saying "Wrong again" without offering evidence to back up the claim.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
We're not getting anywhere. Not sure if you actually saw the interview but since all our convos grind down to this point I'll just agree to disagree. Cheers
the moops
Footballguy
I am not sure how someone could watch that interview and come away with the thought that Flynn wasn't really thinking that martial law should be instituted should the president choose. I mean, he basically winked and had his fingers crossed when he said "I'm not calling for that"sigh. Wrong again.No, he's just saying that the President could order the military into several states to force them to un-Constitutionally re-do their elections.
He literally says we have to "follow the constitution."
Sea Duck
Footballguy
Rupar: Here's Michael Flynn on Newsmax saying that Trump could order "military capabilities" to swing states and "rerun an election in each of those states."
"People out there talk about martial law like it's something that we've never done. Martial law has been instituted 64 times."
--
Flynn: "He could order -- the, the, um, in -- within the swing states, if he wanted to, he could take military capabilities, and he could place 'em in those states, and basically rerun an election in each of those states. It's not unprecedented. I mean, these people out there, talkin' about martial law it's like it's something that we've never done. We've done, er -- Martial law has been instituted 64, 64 times, Greg."
Aside from omitting Flynn's stammering, Rupar quoted him exactly.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
I did. For a couple of reasons. First, he really seemed to be more interested in the Dominion voting machines. That's really the only thing he talked about in the beginning in response to what he (Flynn) wanted done himself. Second, when the conversation shifted to Trump and what his options are, Flynn seemed to go out of his way to say here's an option but I (Flynn) am not recommending that and he also emphasized following the constitution. Third, I didn't read into anything with a wink or fingers crossed or anything like that.
Honestly, after reading Sinn Feins post, I was a little surprised how many different topics were covered and how little of the interview was actually spent on martial law. I can see someone reading Aaron Rupars tweet and coming away with the thought that Flynn wanted martial law. That was clearly his intent.
Summer Wheat
Footballguy
Sea Duck
Footballguy
Wow.
You just finished lecturing us about how we should focus on what people actually said, and now it turns out that you'd rather talk about what you think Rupar intended.
Is it OK to speculate on a person's intent, or not?
Mile High
Footballguy
Don't you find it kind of strange in all this compromised voting machine conspiracy no one thinks to ask Dominion officials to testify?
Last edited by a moderator:
Summer Wheat
Footballguy
I am not following this closely. Just saying if there is any concern at all it should be looked at. Do you think they should tesitify?
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
I think one did (maybe in Michigan). I think it was filed under "Dominion Voting Systems CEO says there's nothing wrong with Dominion Voting Systems". I'm more interested in hearing from unbiased non-partisan 3rd party auditors.
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
So is there any evidence so far that they were compromised or is just baseless accusations from people who can't accept the loss?
No shtick - put me in the camp that would not want to know if the machines were compromised.
Once that happens -public knowledge of hacking - no election will ever be trusted again.
It might be that we really can't trust any election, but I'd rather hold on to the illusion that elections are secure, than to know that can be hacked.
Sea Duck
Footballguy
I don't think the bar should be lowered to "if there is any concern at all." Otherwise it just invites crackpots to repeatedly say "I HAVE CONCERNS!" and then government would be forced to spend all of its time addressing those made-up concerns.
Or, to put it another way: government inquisition should be proportional to the evidence provided. When an accuser provides no evidence, then you get no investigation. When an accuser provides shady allegations disguised as evidence, you get a cursory inquiry.
When an accuser makes a specific allegation (e.g., Dominion machines switched votes), and then the government actually has an investigation which contradicts the allegation (e.g., hand recount in Georgia), then I have no problem using that precedent to deny investigations into similar allegations elsewhere.
Mile High
Footballguy
Yeah I think they should be asked to testify. Let them be able to answer the conspiracy theories. Any hearings only interested in hearing one side is worthless.
Last edited by a moderator:
Summer Wheat
Footballguy
I don`t know. I stated before I am not following this but would like to know if anything was done wrong in our system. That is why I asked.
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
I think the consensus of this board and most of America feels this exact same way. It's funny how we didn't have this same sentiment four years ago and when the results were even closer is the same states.
Summer Wheat
Footballguy
I would have if it was discussed. If things are done on the up and up it does not matter who wins or loses, just that the system in place works for the people who voted.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Never seen someone so hung up over having a thread axed when they didn't make said thread clear from the beginning. Maybe try PM'ing a mod instead of bringing it up every other day.
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
I mean, Am I milking the unfair deletion of a perfectly legitimate thread on a timely political topic for all it's worth? Yes. But am I using the occasion to pointlessly troll the mods for the unfair deletion of a perfectly legitimate thread on a timely political topic? Also yes.
GordonGekko
Footballguy
Sinn Fein said:
“The more things are forbidden, the more popular they become.”
― Mark Twain
“Loyalty to a petrified opinion never yet broke a chain nor freed a human soul.”
― Mark Twain
“Each of you, for himself or herself, by himself or herself, and on his or her own responsibility, must speak. It is a solemn and weighty responsibility and not lightly to be flung aside at the bullying of pulpit, press, government or politician. Each must decide for himself or herself alone what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn’t. You cannot shirk this and be a man."
― Mark Twain, The Bible According to Mark Twain
I hope this doesn’t get me in trouble here because I am serious.
Will there come a time when this thread gets locked? All the court cases that have been lost (60+)and one win ( not one that regarded voter fraud) seems like we should just say no significant systematic voter fraud has been proved in court and end this. I know it’s not up to any of us but seems like it’s time. I think it is harmful to our country without any proof to let this fester.
Maybe we could start a new thread. “ How long will Trump continue to claim the election was stolen from him without any evidence?”
Will there come a time when this thread gets locked? All the court cases that have been lost (60+)and one win ( not one that regarded voter fraud) seems like we should just say no significant systematic voter fraud has been proved in court and end this. I know it’s not up to any of us but seems like it’s time. I think it is harmful to our country without any proof to let this fester.
Maybe we could start a new thread. “ How long will Trump continue to claim the election was stolen from him without any evidence?”
Last edited by a moderator:
AAABatteries
Footballguy
I see no reason to lock it. It should die a natural death after Biden’s inauguration. But, I do think voter fraud allegations should be investigated when there is sufficient evidence there’s fraud. So far, there’s been so little actual evidence to prove anything that it’s obvious Trump lost. He should concede.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Lin Wood submitting his application to the court “under plenty of perjury” is art.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
This question is kind of odd. How the heck are we supposed to know how much voter fraud there was? Are you asking us to side up on this before the evidence is presented? This is like asking who won the Super Bowl this year before the evidence is there. Are we supposed to answer this using feelings or facts?
My answer would be "I voted for Biden and I'm willing to follow any evidence because I want to make sure we have secure elections."
Facts dictate my opinions, not the other way around. I don't have a staff investigating this stuff. How would I know? I am going to just trust the court of law I guess.
My answer would be "I voted for Biden and I'm willing to follow any evidence because I want to make sure we have secure elections."
Facts dictate my opinions, not the other way around. I don't have a staff investigating this stuff. How would I know? I am going to just trust the court of law I guess.
Last edited by a moderator:
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Sea Duck
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Also, LOL at Trump considering naming Powell special counsel. When appointing someone who can only be removed for cause, be sure to name someone who has demonstrated total incompetence n the last two months. Checkmate!
sho nuff
Footballguy
Mile High
Footballguy
It only took scrolling down about 4 replys to find the full quote instead of the 24 seconds the press secretary tried to pass off.
sho nuff
Footballguy
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN27E2VH?fbclid=IwAR0vGzHuiX4Aa0gLhAlk2xwmA-Pwt0GJTVSvFOdTAoazPCtwWyO0HhM5m78&__twitter_impression=true
Of course...I look forward to not having such people lie to us constantly.
shader
Footballguy
Yeah that's a pretty surprising development. He's literally considering appointing Sidney Powell special prosecutor, according to Maggie Haberman. That's insane. A quick check of her tweets and retweets shows she's as far right as it gets.
2nd big thing which I haven't seen discussed is Trump's tweet last night. It was eye-opening.
Similar threads
