Trump charged

[Svensson]

Flynn's prosecution was an absolute travesty

What? What was a travesty about it? He ied to the FBI and congress, initially pleaded guilty and then changed his plea to "Not Guilty" on the advice to Sydney Powell (!!!)

Hillary stored classified info on her private server, destroyed evidence with bleachbit and took hammers to destroy devices. Comey used his discretion on the matter to advise the DoJ NOT to prosecute her. However, Trump is prosecuted. Nah, the system is corrupt as hell to keep one side from prosecution but throw the book at almost anyone associated with Trump.

You can think what you want, but he facts don't agree. there are numerous articles out there, specifically for people who have a persistently false impression about what is going on with the second Trump indictment (I'm confident there are even more to come). Such as:

https://us.cnn.com/2023/06/12/opinions/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-obeidallah/index.html

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/but-her-emails-why-trumps-case-is-very-different-than-hillary-clintons-aa18921c

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-search-warrant-draws-hillary-clinton-comparisons-big-difference-rcna42921

https://www.businessinsider.com/factual-legal-differences-between-trump-and-clinton-classified-records-cases-2023-6?international=true&r=US&IR=T

Just one quote about the thrust of these articles: "Trump's Republican allies are amplifying claims that he's the target of a political prosecution. Their arguments overlook abundant factual and legal differences between his case and Clinton's.[and then goes on to list all those differences]" I recommend you educate yourself on the facts of the case from credible news sources before making wild claims.

Comey also "used his discretion" to call a press conference a month before the election to state "we are re-opening the Clinton email investigation" while knowning fully well that a Trump investigation was also ongoing. Which is yet another datapoint that does not support your Trump-persecution narrative.

Trump asking to find 11, 000 votes is not evidence of corruption, it's evidence of trying to find 11,000 votes which, for instance, could have been thrown out illegally, or been in dispute. Note Trump did not say 'magic me up 11,000 votes from fresh air'. The important word from Trump being 'find'. It suggests he thought the votes were out there somewhere.

You're pretzelling yourself here just like celee did. You are seriously trying to make the claim that Trump was concerned with every legal vote being counted correctly? And that HE should be the arbiter of what is a legal vote and what is not? Like my uncle used to say, "that's far out man". And yes, all this has previously been discussed to the end of the world with celee. If you're really interested, you can look up the "Sooo..." thread from two years ago.

[jason_c]

Trump was corrupt before he became a Republican, let alone ran for President. The Mueller Report established that Russia attempted to influence the 2016 elections in favor of Trump. It did not make any claims about whether Russian attempts were successful. It did not claim there was any voter fraud. It did provide enough evidence that Trump associates Papadopoulos,Gates, Flynn, Manafort, Flynn, Pinedo, Cohen, and Stone were found guilty.

In contrast, while Trump claimed there was systematic voter fraud in 2020, neither he nor any of his supporters have produced any evidence to back this claim. The only evidence of attempted large scale election fraud is Trump trying to get the Georgia Secretary of State to "find 11,780 votes" for him.

Flynn's prosecution was an absolute travesty, as were a number of the others. In fact I'd say the prosecution of these guys prove the establishment are out to get not only Trump but those individuals who are outside the political norms. Hillary stored classified info on her private server, destroyed evidence with bleachbit and took hammers to destroy devices. Comey used his discretion on the matter to advise the DoJ NOT to prosecute her. However, Trump is prosecuted. Nah, the system is corrupt as hell to keep one side from prosecution but throw the book at almost anyone associated with Trump.

Trump asking to find 11, 000 votes is not evidence of corruption, it's evidence of trying to find 11,000 votes which, for instance, could have been thrown out illegally, or been in dispute. Note Trump did not say 'magic me up 11,000 votes from fresh air'. The important word from Trump being 'find'. It suggests he thought the votes were out there somewhere.

[Fiver]

Plus, a natural weeding out of a large chunk of voters who cannot be bothered voting helps weed out the low information voter.

That's not what's happening. Not everyone can afford to take a day off of work and wait in line for hours.

[Fiver]

why would under regular circumstances allowing mail in ballots favour the dems?

It doesn't. Trump has used mail-in ballots.

But thanks to Trump's lies about mail-in ballots, Republicans are more likely to vote in person instead of using mail in ballots. Since mail-in ballots are counted after in-person ballots, that has led to situations where Republicans initially appeared to have the lead in some races, but it turned around once the mail-in ballots were counted.

[Fiver]

This from the same side who claimed Trump was elected through Russian election interference in 2016. Yes, it's a coincidence that elections are always corrupt when the wrong man wins.

Trump was corrupt before he became a Republican, let alone ran for President. The Mueller Report established that Russia attempted to influence the 2016 elections in favor of Trump. It did not make any claims about whether Russian attempts were successful. It did not claim there was any voter fraud. It did provide enough evidence that Trump associates Papadopoulos,Gates, Flynn, Manafort, Flynn, Pinedo, Cohen, and Stone were found guilty.

In contrast, while Trump claimed there was systematic voter fraud in 2020, neither he nor any of his supporters have produced any evidence to back this claim. The only evidence of attempted large scale election fraud is Trump trying to get the Georgia Secretary of State to "find 11,780 votes" for him.

[Svensson]

I'm neutral on more people voting. Most modern democracies have worked best when people aren't all encompassed by politics. Having a healthy disdain for voting and politicians is a positive imo. The German federal elections of 1930 had a record 82% turnout. This 1930 German election is not proof that high turnout leads to bad results, simply that there is no intrinsic positive in more people voting. Plus, a natural weeding out of a large chunk of voters who cannot be bothered voting helps weed out the low information voter.

germany traditionally has a high voter turnout for federal election. often in the 80% range. the last one from 2021 had a 76% turnout. But in Germany they also vote on sundays where more people have time to do so, in other words, they make it easier for people to use their vote.

Problem is, unless you are clearly comitted to making it easy for everyone to vote, you are beginning to chose your voters. i.e. Rural areas will only have 3 polling stations where there is no public transport, automatically disenfranchising voters who rely on public transport to get there. This might include people who have no cars, whose car is currently in a garage or had thier license taken for whatever reason.

Ballot harvesting intrinsically helps Democrats. Dem voters generally live in high density urban areas. One Dem ballot harvesters automatically harvests far more votes than your average Repub rural harvester. Again, this is not illegal(at least in some states) but it is a process that automatically favours Dems.

I don;t see how the average number of ballots collected by A vs. B is an issue if both are collecting 10k ballots. it doesn't influence the numbers at all. All 20k citizens have a right to get thier votes counted no matter which legal route the voter chose to get it to the polling station.

[jason_c]

‘weed out the low information voter’
What happened to one man or woman one vote? Only those that deserve to vote, can.
Maybe we could take tests, or perhaps only males or land owners should be allowed.

At no point did I say I was against one person, one vote. I merely countered the claim that a high voting turnout was somehow good. I'd be grateful if next time you could try to paraphrase what I say somewhat accurately.

[String]

‘weed out the low information voter’
What happened to one man or woman one vote? Only those that deserve to vote, can.
Maybe we could take tests, or perhaps only males or land owners should be allowed.

[jason_c]

why would under regular circumstances allowing mail in ballots favour the dems? It's about making it as easy as possible for citizens to use their vote. where this vote goes is up to the candidate to make a compelling case.

The more people vote, the better.

Besides, the Postmaster General did his best to sabotage the postal service in the run up to the election, so I would consider THAT actually an attempt to put his thumb on the scale.

And wasn't the only known ballot harvesting fraud case comitted by republicans in one of the carolinas in 2018 and that election needed to be re-run?

I'm neutral on more people voting. Most modern democracies have worked best when people aren't all encompassed by politics. Having a healthy disdain for voting and politicians is a positive imo. The German federal elections of 1930 had a record 82% turnout. This 1930 German election is not proof that high turnout leads to bad results, simply that there is no intrinsic positive in more people voting. Plus, a natural weeding out of a large chunk of voters who cannot be bothered voting helps weed out the low information voter.

Ballot harvesting intrinsically helps Democrats. Dem voters generally live in high density urban areas. One Dem ballot harvesters automatically harvests far more votes than your average Repub rural harvester. Again, this is not illegal(at least in some states) but it is a process that automatically favours Dems.

[Svensson]

why would under regular circumstances allowing mail in ballots favour the dems? It's about making it as easy as possible for citizens to use their vote. where this vote goes is up to the candidate to make a compelling case.

The more people vote, the better.

Besides, the Postmaster General did his best to sabotage the postal service in the run up to the election, so I would consider THAT actually an attempt to put his thumb on the scale.

And wasn't the only known ballot harvesting fraud case comitted by republicans in one of the carolinas in 2018 and that election needed to be re-run?

[jason_c]

the fraudulent voter may commit the fraud with the intent of effecting the outcome of an election but that doesnt mean their fraud eventually proved to be effective.

you can not invalidate an entire election of 100,000 people because one guy voted twice. otherwise you are giving this one person to screw the voting rights of the rest of the population.

Instead, you need to be able to show fraud on the kind of scale that DID affect the outcome of an election. And this is where the 2020 election deniers fall flat despite numerous recounts, audits and cyber ninjas getting involved.

cheers.

Sorry, but I don't need to show anything. A patchwork of electoral reform was quickly enacted in the wake of COVID. My opinion is, and always will be, that certain states put their thumb on the scales to help Dems with mail ins & ballet harvesting. I'm not even saying it was definitely illegal, I'm saying it was all rather sketchy. I hold this opinion the same way the left hold their opinions on Russia winning 2016 for Trump.

[c.d.]

Instead, you need to be able to show fraud on the kind of scale that DID affect the outcome of an election.

Exactly, and while there are legal options that the loser of the election can pursue he must first meet that threshold. Simply showing instances of fraud is not sufficient.

c.d.

[Svensson]

Sure, and the countless elections where there was undoubted voter fraud were left standing. The legal system is not a perfect process.

Electoral fraud does not effect the outcome of an election? Why then commit election fraud if not to effect the outcome? You see all those US elections from local dogcatcher, sheriff, and party primaries etc; elections where the difference in votes between candidates is often in the hundreds to a few thousand. Im going to suggest electoral fraud regularly changes the outcome of numerous US local and primary elections. What I cannot say with any confidence is that voter fraud regularly effects the outcome of Presidential elections.

the fraudulent voter may commit the fraud with the intent of effecting the outcome of an election but that doesnt mean their fraud eventually proved to be effective.

you can not invalidate an entire election of 100,000 people because one guy voted twice. otherwise you are giving this one person to screw the voting rights of the rest of the population.

Instead, you need to be able to show fraud on the kind of scale that DID affect the outcome of an election. And this is where the 2020 election deniers fall flat despite numerous recounts, audits and cyber ninjas getting involved.

cheers.

[String]

One floater flushed himself down before someone else did it. Nothing but a lying coward.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/09/boris-johnson-resigns-as-mp-with-immediate-effect-over-partygate-report

[FISHY1118]

Or Gore, or Nixon .