Election Day Thread - Nov. 3, 2020

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

i don't get this argument. The evidence we didn't cheat in election 1 of 10, is because we didn't win elections 2-10?

A. That doesn't mean you didn't cheat in election 1.

B. That doesn't mean you didn't cheat in any of the 9 other elections either. Cheating is hard. Just because you cheat doesn't mean you automatically win.

Note - this is just a general argument. I have not once blamed trump losing on cheating.

lol.......................

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by Giantone

.....................and you guys won't admit you back a loser ,crook and now you all look bad.Face it trump was a mistake that you can't back away from.

I voted for him in 2016. And I would do the same 100 out of 100 again if Hillary Clinton was the other candidate.

He didn't deliver like I had hoped, the whole Republican party hasn't for a long time. So I didn't vote for him this time. But if I had to vote, and the only 2 candidates I could vote for were Trump or Biden, I'd vote for Trump 100 out of 100 times again. Not running from anything.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Big fan of starter pack memes.

[BaltimoreSkins]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

I believe Romney said back in 2012 that Russia was our biggest threat, and Obama mocked him.

Both sides have dropped the ball on Russia and it goes back to well before 2016.

They probably interfered in all of our elections in the last 50ish years. It needs to be stopped, that's for sure.

I'd agree with that. TBH the Obama coalition that got him elected was very alienating to what used to be a staple base of democrats blue collar white workers. While what Obama did I wouldn't consider as divisive as Trump it definitely had a part of being where we are now.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

Big fan of starter pack memes.

Found the lib version on Reddit.



I don't see the lie LOL.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by mooby

Found the lib version on Reddit.



I don't see the lie LOL.

Yes, that is a very equal comparison. Both very accurate.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

So they had enough to remove him for collusion? But decided, nah, we won't go for that, we'll go for a way lesser charge of obstruction?



Lol is what I think of the investigation. You guys just hate Trump, so no matter what the investigation actually concluded, he colluded anyways. He was guilty before the investigation began. I hope you guys never serve on juries. We don't like him = guilty.

SD do the words “you can’t indict a sitting president “ mean anything to you? How about if they come from the top law enforcement officer in the land? A Trump appointee. How about the GOP controlled senate that along with the help of AG Barr basically threw the report in the garbage? Come on man. He was fully insulated from prosecution. Yet you go with the “witch hunt” theory. Its your brain man do what ya want with it. Lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by MTK

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly. I said before the down ballot just completely voids any conspiracies but of course that got buried by regurgitated Trumpisms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

I don't get this argument. The evidence we didn't cheat in election 1 of 10, is because we didn't win elections 2-10?



A. That doesn't mean you didn't cheat in election 1.



B. That doesn't mean you didn't cheat in any of the 9 other elections either. Cheating is hard. Just because you cheat doesn't mean you automatically win.



Note - This is just a general argument. I have not once blamed Trump losing on cheating.

So it is just a random thought you throw out there during the midst of this? Lol. Strong insinuations that you believe he was cheated at the least no?
I can tell you hate both sides. Dont think you are a Trumper but there is clearly a problem in the WH right now the likes this country has never seen. And I thank God for the millions of legally cast ballots that are kicking his ass out. Because an unhinged, juvenile, self centered, egotistical, racist has no business being there. It is extremely dangerous. As we are seeing now. He is putting us in major jeopardy with his temper tantrum. Hopefully the good people of the IA’s are on careful watch throughout dick heads temper tantrum. I would hate for people to die because of it. And that is not to mention the people who died and are dying because of his inability to let actual doctors and scientists take charge of the virus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by punch it in

SD do the words “you can’t indict a sitting president “ mean anything to you? How about if they come from the top law enforcement officer in the land? A Trump appointee. How about the GOP controlled senate that along with the help of AG Barr basically threw the report in the garbage? Come on man. He was fully insulated from prosecution. Yet you go with the “witch hunt” theory. Its your brain man do what ya want with it. Lol.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The house impeached him for obstruction, so if there was enough evidence, why couldn't they have impeached him for collusion, as the original investigation was for?

Maybe I'm actually wrong and there is a difference. If you can't indict him for collusion doesn't seem like you could indict him for obstruction either. But they still impeached him for the latter knowing the same thing.

Why can't the answer just be there wasn't enough evidence to prove collusion so they moved the goal post to obstruction?

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

The house impeached him for obstruction, so if there was enough evidence, why couldn't they have impeached him for collusion, as the original investigation was for?



Maybe I'm actually wrong and there is a difference. If you can't indict him for collusion doesn't seem like you could indict him for obstruction either. But they still impeached him for the latter knowing the same thing.



Why can't the answer just be there wasn't enough evidence to prove collusion so they moved the goal post to obstruction?

They could have impeached him for either or both. It was explained why they didnt. There is an actual legal term for it but I cannot remember. Basically it would have been over kill to impeach him for both though. As far as indictments that was Barrs call. Not the house. Barr believes you cannot indict a sitting president. It is not part of the constitution it was his determination of the law. That is all. Bottom line is Trump was completely insulated. The house knew it wouldn’t go anywhere but they did what they thought was proper anyway. There was a slim hope that a few GOP senators would put country over party. No chance in the end.
The report did not exonerate him of either charge btw. Those were also Barrs determinations. Mueller actually said his report did not in any way exonerate Trump. Life long Republican Mueller that is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[punch it in]

https://apnews.com/article/ffc57a10c...459adc065bab18


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[kct1975]

I happed to hear this song recently on the radio and I think that it is very fitting for the current election...

https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk...&feature=share

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

[Giantone]

1)

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

The house impeached him for obstruction, so if there was enough evidence, why couldn't they have impeached him for collusion, as the original investigation was for?



2)Why can't the answer just be there wasn't enough evidence to prove collusion

1) The Senate wouldn't do what is right and they knew it and the house showed it to the Country.


2) With trump evidence doesn't matter when you threaten the Senate.


You need to read the report.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Instead of 2 separate replies, this is a response to both #386 and #389.

My point of conversation is up and through when the house passed articles of impeachment. Not talking about what the senate did afterwards. Democrats knew the whole time he was not actually going to get removed. Republican senators represent themselves 1st and their constituents 2nd. If they impeached, they would have signed all their own political death warrants.

The original investigation that took up to I believe 2 years was for collusion. Obstruction didn't come up until afterwards. It doesn't make sense that they wouldn't have impeached him for collusion if there was sufficient evidence to do so. They clearly didn't. And the threshold to impeach a president should be extremely high. Otherwise if one side controls Congress they can always look for anything to impeach the president for.

Mueller saying it didn't fully exonerate him is a copout imo. He didn't have enough, so he took the easy way out that would leave some meat on the bone for democrats. You're innocent until proven guilty. He wasn't proven guilty. And it's not like Mueller didn't absolutely want to impeach him. He is a partisan.

Obviously I'm biased, but I don't think this met the threshold for removal from office. And I'm glad he wasn't removed. I don't want to set a precedent for low bars for impeachment/removal.

Note - Was not old enough during Clinton's presidency to have an opinion one way or the other. But looking at it now, that was dumb af, and glad he didn't get removed either.

This is all moot now anyways. These are just my expressed written opinions on the subject. You guys can both have your finals words if needed, and I'll let the sleeping dogs lie.