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.
Healing And Moving Forward - Thoughts? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
GordonGekko
Footballguy
https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=CB7B78C2-5313-4FA2-AB83-B4A7C85201F9
Here is Klobuchar's letter, with the relevant sections added here: March 27, 2019
Intelligence Agencies have confirmed that our election systems are a target for foreign adversaries, yet election vendors continue to sell equipment with known vulnerabilities The Ranking Members of the Senate Rules, Intelligence, Armed Services, and Homeland Security Committees are requesting information about the security of voting systems
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ranking Member of the Senate Rules Committee with oversight jurisdiction over federal elections, sent a letter to the country’s three largest election system vendors with questions to help inform the best way to move forward to strengthen the security of our voting machines...... However, voting and cybersecurity experts have begun to call attention to the lack of competition in the election vendor marketplace and the need for scrutiny by regulators as these vendors continue to produce poor technology, like machines that lack paper ballots or auditability.
Klobuchar was joined on the letter by Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator Gary Peters (D-MI), Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee.
“The integrity of our elections remains under serious threat. Our nation’s intelligence agencies continue to raise the alarm that foreign adversaries are actively trying to undermine our system of democracy, and will target the 2020 elections as they did the 2016 and 2018 elections,” the senators wrote. “The integrity of our elections is directly tied to the machines we vote on – the products that you make. Despite shouldering such a massive responsibility, there has been a lack of meaningful innovation in the election vendor industry and our democracy is paying the price.” .....As the three largest election equipment vendors, your companies provide voting machines and software used by 92 percent of the eligible voting population in the U.S. This market concentration is one factor among many that could be contributing to the lack of innovation in election equipment. In order to help improve our understanding of your businesses and the integrity of our election systems, we respectfully request answers to the following questions by April 9, 2019:
....Do you support federal efforts to require the use of hand-marked paper ballots for most voters in federal elections? Why or why not?
.....Experts have raised significant concerns about the risks of ballot marking machines that store voter choice information in non-transparent forms that cannot be reviewed by voters (i.e. such as barcodes or QR codes), noting that errors in the printed vote record could potentially evade detection by voters. Do you currently sell any machines whose paper records do not permit voters to review the same information that the voting system uses for tabulation? If so, do you believe this practice is secure enough to be used in the 2020 election cycle?
......Would you support federal legislation requiring expanded use of routine post-election audits, such as risk-limiting audits, in federal elections? Why or why not?
.....How does your company currently define a reportable cyber-incident and what protocols are in place to report incidents to government officials?
....What steps are you taking to improve supply chain security? To the extent your machines operate using custom, non-commodity hardware, what measures are you taking to ensure that the supply chains for your custom hardware components are monitored and secure?
..... Do you conduct background checks on potential employees who would be involved in building and servicing election systems?
....Does your company operate, or plan to operate, a vulnerability disclosure program that authorizes good-faith security research and testing of your systems, and provides a clear reporting mechanism when vulnerabilities are discovered? ...
*****
So four of the most powerful committees in Congress come forward, with ranking members, some of whom are POTUS contenders, and say "our elections are under serious threat" and question why Dominion systems lack "auditability", lack an ability for voters to review their actual votes, lack investment in pushing for widespread standards of risk limiting audits ( which is required by law in Georgia and has not been used in this current election by SOS Raffensperger), lack of accountability regarding chain of custody, lack of transparency in background checks and a lack of a transparent internal vulnerability program. This impacts 92 percent of all American voters, but as Mr Ham says, nothing is wrong.
The MSM wants to suppress the Klobuchar letter even exists and yet it's more Orange Man Bad. If Donald Trump says something is wrong, then he has to burn. But if Amy Klobuchar says it, then what? "...our elections are under serious threat..."
Here is where some healing starts. It starts when some folks admit that "It only counts to us if it's Orange Man Bad" Only then, when all rationalization burns away, can one be in a position to defend the Republic versus defend a dogmatic partisan agenda.
Here is Klobuchar's letter, with the relevant sections added here: March 27, 2019
Intelligence Agencies have confirmed that our election systems are a target for foreign adversaries, yet election vendors continue to sell equipment with known vulnerabilities The Ranking Members of the Senate Rules, Intelligence, Armed Services, and Homeland Security Committees are requesting information about the security of voting systems
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ranking Member of the Senate Rules Committee with oversight jurisdiction over federal elections, sent a letter to the country’s three largest election system vendors with questions to help inform the best way to move forward to strengthen the security of our voting machines...... However, voting and cybersecurity experts have begun to call attention to the lack of competition in the election vendor marketplace and the need for scrutiny by regulators as these vendors continue to produce poor technology, like machines that lack paper ballots or auditability.
Klobuchar was joined on the letter by Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator Gary Peters (D-MI), Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee.
“The integrity of our elections remains under serious threat. Our nation’s intelligence agencies continue to raise the alarm that foreign adversaries are actively trying to undermine our system of democracy, and will target the 2020 elections as they did the 2016 and 2018 elections,” the senators wrote. “The integrity of our elections is directly tied to the machines we vote on – the products that you make. Despite shouldering such a massive responsibility, there has been a lack of meaningful innovation in the election vendor industry and our democracy is paying the price.” .....As the three largest election equipment vendors, your companies provide voting machines and software used by 92 percent of the eligible voting population in the U.S. This market concentration is one factor among many that could be contributing to the lack of innovation in election equipment. In order to help improve our understanding of your businesses and the integrity of our election systems, we respectfully request answers to the following questions by April 9, 2019:
....Do you support federal efforts to require the use of hand-marked paper ballots for most voters in federal elections? Why or why not?
.....Experts have raised significant concerns about the risks of ballot marking machines that store voter choice information in non-transparent forms that cannot be reviewed by voters (i.e. such as barcodes or QR codes), noting that errors in the printed vote record could potentially evade detection by voters. Do you currently sell any machines whose paper records do not permit voters to review the same information that the voting system uses for tabulation? If so, do you believe this practice is secure enough to be used in the 2020 election cycle?
......Would you support federal legislation requiring expanded use of routine post-election audits, such as risk-limiting audits, in federal elections? Why or why not?
.....How does your company currently define a reportable cyber-incident and what protocols are in place to report incidents to government officials?
....What steps are you taking to improve supply chain security? To the extent your machines operate using custom, non-commodity hardware, what measures are you taking to ensure that the supply chains for your custom hardware components are monitored and secure?
..... Do you conduct background checks on potential employees who would be involved in building and servicing election systems?
....Does your company operate, or plan to operate, a vulnerability disclosure program that authorizes good-faith security research and testing of your systems, and provides a clear reporting mechanism when vulnerabilities are discovered? ...
*****
So four of the most powerful committees in Congress come forward, with ranking members, some of whom are POTUS contenders, and say "our elections are under serious threat" and question why Dominion systems lack "auditability", lack an ability for voters to review their actual votes, lack investment in pushing for widespread standards of risk limiting audits ( which is required by law in Georgia and has not been used in this current election by SOS Raffensperger), lack of accountability regarding chain of custody, lack of transparency in background checks and a lack of a transparent internal vulnerability program. This impacts 92 percent of all American voters, but as Mr Ham says, nothing is wrong.
The MSM wants to suppress the Klobuchar letter even exists and yet it's more Orange Man Bad. If Donald Trump says something is wrong, then he has to burn. But if Amy Klobuchar says it, then what? "...our elections are under serious threat..."
Here is where some healing starts. It starts when some folks admit that "It only counts to us if it's Orange Man Bad" Only then, when all rationalization burns away, can one be in a position to defend the Republic versus defend a dogmatic partisan agenda.
Last edited by a moderator:
dgreen
Footballguy
On a macro-level, you might be right. In the grand scheme of things, there may not be nation-wide healing and moving forward until the Trumps are out of politics and influential positions. But, all of that has absolutely nothing to to do with me and my ability to treat others in a positive manner. My actions and behavior don't have to be conditional.Amused to Death said:
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Fortunately IRL I don't know anyone who does support the current actions. But I'd definitely be vocal of my opposition if I did. I can be polite otherwise.
dgreen
Footballguy
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Put it this way, if I'm in a conversation with someone and subject of Trump and feelings towards his seditious actions comes up, my feelings would be known. I'm wouldn't be the one to bring it up, but I wouldn't shy away from it either.
dgreen
Footballguy
Thanks. I get that. But to what end? What are you trying to accomplish by making your feelings known?
GordonGekko
Footballguy
https://ktxs.com/news/beyond-the-podium/georgia-runoffs-are-impossible-to-properly-audit-experts-say
Georgia runoffs are impossible to properly audit, experts say
by BROOKE CONRAD, Sinclair Broadcast Group Thursday, December 17th 2020
WASHINGTON (SBG) - Election security experts are warning that the Georgia runoff elections will be impossible to properly audit. Georgia residents will cast their votes on touchscreens, also known as ballot-marking devices, produced by Dominion Voting Systems. Since the voters don’t record their selections by hand, there’s no paper trail to verify whether the machines recorded the votes correctly— i.e., that the machine didn't contain malware or was otherwise misconfigured.
Georgia’s machines print a paper record after someone votes. But that record only shows how the machine recorded the vote, and not necessarily how the person intended to vote, explained Marilyn Marks, vice president and executive director of the Coalition for Good Governance.
In addition, that piece of paper only contains a barcode and a list of names. It is possible for the machine to record a different vote in the barcode than what’s on the list, or a different vote from what the voter intended, she said. Marks says only mail-in ballots will leave an auditable paper trail, since they are hand-marked. “Those are the only ones where we can know what the voter's choice really was,” she said. “Otherwise, what we know is what the computer put on paper, which may not at all be what the voter intended to be put on paper.”...
Cybersecurity experts have been warning about election machine hackability for years....(Philip)Stark invented the “risk-limiting audit,” a statistical test that allows election officials to verify election results by checking random samples of ballots, instead of recounting the entire vote. For a risk-limiting audit to work, officials need to follow the right physical procedures, Stark said. That would include using hand-marked paper ballots. It also includes other procedures, like maintaining proper ballot custody, checking voter eligibility, ensuring there aren’t more ballots than registered voters, and verifying signatures.
“If they do those things, then a risk-limiting audit could really give them strong evidence about who actually won,” Stark said.
When verifying results, election officials ultimately need to focus on evidence rather than procedures, he said. Just because they followed certain rules or used certified equipment doesn’t necessarily mean the results are trustworthy. “That’s like a brain surgeon saying, ‘I followed procedures and used a sterile scalpel, therefore the patient is fine,’” instead of actually examining the patient following the procedure, Stark said.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/reliability-of-pricey-new-voting-machines-questioned
Reliability of pricey new voting machines questioned Feb 23, 2020 3:55 PM EST
....But instead of choosing simple, hand-marked paper ballots that are most resistant to tampering because paper cannot be hacked, many are opting for pricier technology that computer security experts consider almost as risky as earlier discredited electronic systems. Called ballot-marking devices, the machines have touchscreens for registering voter choice. Unlike touchscreen-only machines, they print out paper records that are scanned by optical readers. .....The most pricey solution available, they are at least twice as expensive as the hand-marked paper ballot option. They have been vigorously promoted by the three voting equipment vendors that control 88 percent of the U.S. market.
Some of the most popular ballot-marking machines, made by industry leaders Election Systems & Software and Dominion Voting Systems, register votes in bar codes that the human eye cannot decipher. That’s a problem, researchers say: Voters could end up with printouts that accurately spell out the names of the candidates they picked, but, because of a hack, the bar codes do not reflect those choices. Because the bar codes are what’s tabulated, voters would never know that their ballots benefited another candidate....Even on machines that do not use bar codes, voters may not notice if a hack or programming error mangled their choices. A University of Michigan study determined that only 7 percent of participants in a mock election notified poll workers when the names on their printed receipts did not match the candidates they voted for.....
But (Doug)Jones (CS Analyst) is among experts who think today’s ballot-marking devices undermine the very idea of retaining a paper record that can be used in audits and recounts. It’s an idea supported by a 2018 National Academies of Sciences report that favors hand-marked paper ballots tallied by optical scanners. Some 70 percent of U.S. voters used them in the past two presidential elections and will do so again in November....The industry faces virtually no federal regulation even though election technology was designated critical infrastructure in January 2017. Federal certification guidelines for voting machine design are 15 years old and voluntary. The leading vendors have resisted publicly disclosing third-party penetration testing of their systems....
***********
GordonGekko
Footballguy
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3375755
Ballot-Marking Devices (BMDs) Cannot Assure the Will of the Voters
28 Pages Posted: 21 May 2019 Last revised: 4 Jan 2020
Andrew Appel, (Princeton University), Richard DeMillo, (Georgia Institute of Technology), Philip B. Stark, (University of California, Berkeley) Date Written: April 21, 2019
Most voters do not review BMD (Ballot Marking Devices)-printed ballots, and those who do often fail to notice when the printed vote is not what they expressed on the touchscreen. Furthermore, there is no action a voter can take to demonstrate to election officials that a BMD altered their expressed votes, nor is there a corrective action that election officials can take if notified by voters—there is no way to deter, contain,or correct computer hacking in BMDs. These are the essential security flaws of BMDs. Risk-limiting audits can assure that the votes recorded on paper ballots are tabulated correctly, but no audit can assure that the votes on paper are the ones expressed by the voter on a touchscreen: Elections conducted on current BMDs cannot be confirmed by audits.
The only known practical technology for contestable, strongly defensible voting is a system of hand-marked paper ballots, kept demonstrably physically secure, counted by machine, audited manually, and re-countable by hand.....Some ballot-marking devices (BMDs)can be software independent, but they are not strongly software independent, contestable, or defensible. Hacked or mis-programmed BMDs can alter election outcomes undetectably, so elections conducted using BMDs cannot provide public evidence that reported outcomes are correct. If BMD malfunctions are detected, there is no way to determine who really won....
....Research in a real polling place in Tennessee during the 2018 election, found that half the voters didn’t look at all at the paper ballot printed by a BMD, even when they were holding it in their hand and directed to do so while carrying it from the BMD to the optical scanner [13]. Those voters who did look at the BMD-printed ballot spent an average of 4 seconds examining it to verify that the eighteen or more choices they made were correctly recorded. That amounts to 222 milliseconds per contest, barely enough time for the human eye to move and refocus under perfect conditions and not nearly enough time for perception, comprehension, and recall [27]. A study by other researchers [7], in a simulated polling place using real BMDs deliberately hacked to alter one vote on each paper ballot, found that only 6.6% of voters told a poll worker something was wrong. The same study found that among voters who examined their hand-marked ballots, half were unable to recall key features of ballots cast moments before, a prerequisite step for being able to recall their own ballot choices.This finding is broadly consistent with studies of effects like “change blindness” or“choice blindness,” in which human subjects fail to notice changes made to choice made only seconds before....
....A fundamental difference between hand-marked paper ballots and ballot-marking devices is that, with hand-marked paper ballots, voters are responsible for catching and correcting their own errors, while if BMDs are used, voters are also responsible for catching machine errors, bugs, and hacking. Voters are the only people who can detect such problems with BMDs—but, as explained above, if voters do find problems, there’s no way they can prove to poll workers or election officials that there were problems and no way to ensure that election officials take appropriate remedial action...
Cost.Using BMDs for all voters substantially increases the cost of acquiring,configuring, and maintaining the voting system. One PCOS can serve 1200 voters in a day, while one BMD can serve only about 260...
*****
Ballot-Marking Devices (BMDs) Cannot Assure the Will of the Voters
28 Pages Posted: 21 May 2019 Last revised: 4 Jan 2020
Andrew Appel, (Princeton University), Richard DeMillo, (Georgia Institute of Technology), Philip B. Stark, (University of California, Berkeley) Date Written: April 21, 2019
Most voters do not review BMD (Ballot Marking Devices)-printed ballots, and those who do often fail to notice when the printed vote is not what they expressed on the touchscreen. Furthermore, there is no action a voter can take to demonstrate to election officials that a BMD altered their expressed votes, nor is there a corrective action that election officials can take if notified by voters—there is no way to deter, contain,or correct computer hacking in BMDs. These are the essential security flaws of BMDs. Risk-limiting audits can assure that the votes recorded on paper ballots are tabulated correctly, but no audit can assure that the votes on paper are the ones expressed by the voter on a touchscreen: Elections conducted on current BMDs cannot be confirmed by audits.
The only known practical technology for contestable, strongly defensible voting is a system of hand-marked paper ballots, kept demonstrably physically secure, counted by machine, audited manually, and re-countable by hand.....Some ballot-marking devices (BMDs)can be software independent, but they are not strongly software independent, contestable, or defensible. Hacked or mis-programmed BMDs can alter election outcomes undetectably, so elections conducted using BMDs cannot provide public evidence that reported outcomes are correct. If BMD malfunctions are detected, there is no way to determine who really won....
....Research in a real polling place in Tennessee during the 2018 election, found that half the voters didn’t look at all at the paper ballot printed by a BMD, even when they were holding it in their hand and directed to do so while carrying it from the BMD to the optical scanner [13]. Those voters who did look at the BMD-printed ballot spent an average of 4 seconds examining it to verify that the eighteen or more choices they made were correctly recorded. That amounts to 222 milliseconds per contest, barely enough time for the human eye to move and refocus under perfect conditions and not nearly enough time for perception, comprehension, and recall [27]. A study by other researchers [7], in a simulated polling place using real BMDs deliberately hacked to alter one vote on each paper ballot, found that only 6.6% of voters told a poll worker something was wrong. The same study found that among voters who examined their hand-marked ballots, half were unable to recall key features of ballots cast moments before, a prerequisite step for being able to recall their own ballot choices.This finding is broadly consistent with studies of effects like “change blindness” or“choice blindness,” in which human subjects fail to notice changes made to choice made only seconds before....
....A fundamental difference between hand-marked paper ballots and ballot-marking devices is that, with hand-marked paper ballots, voters are responsible for catching and correcting their own errors, while if BMDs are used, voters are also responsible for catching machine errors, bugs, and hacking. Voters are the only people who can detect such problems with BMDs—but, as explained above, if voters do find problems, there’s no way they can prove to poll workers or election officials that there were problems and no way to ensure that election officials take appropriate remedial action...
Cost.Using BMDs for all voters substantially increases the cost of acquiring,configuring, and maintaining the voting system. One PCOS can serve 1200 voters in a day, while one BMD can serve only about 260...
*****
Last edited by a moderator:
GordonGekko
Footballguy
*******
So there's a piece of "paper" according to the moops. ( He's saying there is a piece of paper, but not saying what's actually on that piece of paper)
What he's not telling you is that NO HUMAN BEING ON THE PLANET CAN READ A BAR CODE WITH THEIR NAKED EYES.
Half the people don't even look at their ballot afterwards, of those that do, only 7 percent talk to a poll worker after spending 4 seconds on the average looking at it, and even if they do that, there is no actual process/standard/guideline/recourse to do anything about it.
Let's go over this shall we
1) Georgia election law states that any contest in dispute must be checked with a Risk Limiting Audit. This is NOT an issue open for dispute.
2) Georgia SOS Raffensperger orders what amounts to a hand tally/re-canvass, and NOT an official RLA as required by law, according to Philip Stark, who invented the RLA. Stark also states that this election should be in dispute and that voters should not be confident in what Raffensperger is saying. This is NOT an issue open for dispute.
3) Georgia spent 107 million dollars on system with NO FEDERAL OVERSIGHT NOR REGULATION where the companies investors ARE SHIELDED WITH ANONYMITY to replace a proven pen and paper 30 million dollar system. That basic battle tested pen and paper system ( low tech) is acknowledged universally as the system most capable of being "tamper proof". This is NOT an issue open for dispute.
Oh, one more thing, if it's not clear - NO HUMAN BEING ON THE PLANET CAN READ A BAR CODE WITH THEIR NAKED EYES.
timschochet
Footballguy
And now the healing thread has become as unreadable as most of the other threads in this forum, thanks to a single poster. Good times.
HellToupee
Footballguy
This is true.
Mr. Gekko, please don't do that.
A good rule for you would be to never copy-and-paste anything. Write your own thoughts.
dgreen
Footballguy
Trump should be impeached again. If he's not impeached again, he must be prosecuted.
The penalty for attempting to remain in power by corruptly overturning an election cannot simply be that it didn't work. If that's the only consequence, every President who loses an election should try to illegally remain in power by whatever fraudulent means he can think of. The upside if you succeed is that you can become king. The downside if you fail is ... what? Nothing? That doesn't seem like a good set of incentives.
The penalty for attempting to remain in power by corruptly overturning an election cannot simply be that it didn't work. If that's the only consequence, every President who loses an election should try to illegally remain in power by whatever fraudulent means he can think of. The upside if you succeed is that you can become king. The downside if you fail is ... what? Nothing? That doesn't seem like a good set of incentives.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Impeachment is also insufficient. To me, this is just the case that proves the OLC memo is just wrong. It just can’t be afforded any precedential weight because we’ve experienced the exact parade of horrible it invited. .
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I'm usually not a fan (to put it mildly) of prosecuting former presidents, but I strongly agree that this latest travesty by Trump should be one of the very few exceptions to that general rule. I say that as somebody who would have been okay with a pardon for most of the other stuff he's done in office.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
I just find it sad that in this of all threads, we are expected to ignore and or report things. I've never done either, but I guess I will be forced to by the awful moderation that we see in this forum. This fake GG will of course be allowed to continuously spam away.The ignore feature works great. I find this thread to be very readable.
JAA
Footballguy
tri-man 47
Footballguy
, GB.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
HellToupee
Footballguy
GoBirds
Footballguy
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
I think @GordonGekkoposts are well done and provocative. Isn’t wasn’t too long ago the crew demanded everyone outside of the majority opinion show their work by backing up their opinions like they were writing a thesis.
GoBirds
Footballguy
The quality of the info isn't at issue. The quantity is.
A lot of people are saying that there are too many words, and scrolling is tedious on a phone.
Max Power
Footballguy
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
BoltBacker
Footballguy
But the complaint isn't that he posts too many LINKS, it's that he's cutting and pasting entire blocks of text that you can go to simply by going TO THE LINK. Personally, I appreciate the links of his source material even if he deceptively tries to bury the actual source with "fair and balanced" links to obfuscate the fact he's clearly getting the original point from some far right wing donor sight. But I'm fine with that... a few extra links no problem imo.
GoBirds
Footballguy
Let me guess, all of these people are anti Trump?
We are really going to censor a guy because the regulars don’t like scrolling? Would think you all would embrace a voice from the other side with the stamina to absorb certain posters flooding them.
. While ignoring guys running around saying no chance for healing unless every Trump supporter denounces him.
GoBirds
Footballguy
Or even certain posters that basically post 100 times/day “I’M RIGHT, YOU’RE WRONG!” essentially over and over for years on end isn’t a problem but posting so much content you have to scroll is?
If you add up the total amount of scrolling we have to do to get through the hourly Trump haters and compare it to @GordonGekko posts he’s a small fraction.
I vote don’t censor him...but you know what my vote is worth in here.
BoltBacker
Footballguy
Just about the same as the GOP would like your vote to be worth. Congratulations... I guess?I vote don’t censor him...but you know what my vote is worth in here.
bigbottom
Footballguy
Back to the healing and moving forward topic. If the Democrats were somehow able to win both of the Georgia seats and take control of the Senate, would they be willing to focus on moderate judicial nominations that are likely to have more bipartisan support than progressive nominees?
Apple Jack
Footballguy
Apple Jack
Footballguy
My understanding is the 1 wasn't so much a win as a willingness of the court to hear what they had to say. The other 60 were laughed out at the door. Is that incorrect?
I feel like that record gives a false sense of success.
Last edited by a moderator:
GoBirds
Footballguy
BoltBacker
Footballguy
Sure, but if I were posting as an "Always Trump" poster you'd probably give me a thumbs up!I guess that’s supposed to be a dig but pretty weak. Way to heal bro.
GoBirds
Footballguy
What’s the temper tantrum, the behavior of those in here about Trump? I think we are on the same page there but I don’t agree about his court record at all.....settlements are not a loss. Also his overall business record is quite strong as had been shown in here many times.
Dont pretend you ever thought Trump was going to go away quietly without controversy. And dont overdramaticize it. Most people hear a few minutes of it from the MSM and then forget about it and go on with their lives.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Whether people forget about or not, Trump's phone call to the GA SoS is unacceptable and needs to be dealt with. Do not accept it as just Trump being Trump.
Apple Jack
Footballguy
Have a lot of experience with this kind of thing, do you? Old hat? It's no biggie that the President is trying to illegally overturn a fairly contested election?
"Healing" LOL
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm healing fine and my guy didnt even win, and is playing a bit of a sore sport until his time is up. It will be ok though, relax.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
They would be foolish to do this, IMO. Whether or not it could help heal or not may be a different question but I still wouldn’t do it.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
GoBirds
Footballguy
Oh you are talking just these recent lawsuits? I thought you were referring to over his career.
You can try to create hypotheticals to make you feel better but he’s had thousands of successful business ventures and what 6 bankruptcies with most in AC where no one survived? That’s an outstanding success rate.....sorry.
Apple Jack
Footballguy
Similar threads
