Why don't you start arguing with facts instead of slandering people? I posted the Fox News article I was talking about a few days ago, and it's in the post above again. I have never, ever, not even once referenced CNN or MSNBC, but that's ALL I ever hear from you. You need to stop doing that.

Here's an interesting fact-oid. Ohio and Florida are critical to the path to election.

If Biden wins the election, he will possibly be the first Democrat President in history to win while losing both Florida and Ohio. If not the first, it's extremely rare.

The last President to win without Ohio was JFK in 1960. It would be only the 3rd time a President won without Ohio.

The last President to win without Florida was Clinton in 1992. Only twice ever has a Democrat won the election without Florida.

I don't have the information easily available but considering only 3 since 1900 have won without Ohio, and Florida has gone for the loser only 11 times in history, it's an "almost never" or "never" occurrence where the winner (particularly if a Democrat) of the US Presidency did so without carrying both Ohio and Florida.

Yeah, I agree that's intersting! I think it's because Trump appeals to a very different base than the historical Republican base, and he's also riled up a bunch of "never Trumpers" who would never have really been Biden voters. Trump is also so polarizing that he got out the vote both for AND against him, with lots of people coming to the polls to vote for him who never voted before, and lots of people coming to vote against him who also never voted before. I think this election was very much a referendum on Trump, and that resulted in quite a different distribution of votes than previously.

I am not at all surprised that the belwethers in this election were quite different than they were for Bush/Gore, Obama/McCain, etc.

There has also only been 58 (59 counting this one) total presidential elections in the US. Yes, it's been 230-odd years or something, but that's a small sample size. Almost any trend formed in that sample size is ripe for the bucking.

I think the swing states have changed. Everyone was watching Florida, but I don't think Florida can really be considered a swing state anymore, at least, not with Trump's base. Florida is now a red state. Ohio is also probably a red state now, no longer a swing state.

On the other hand, Georgia, Arizona, and eventually maybe Texas are in play as are the PA/MI/WI "blue wall" states that the Democrats felt safe previously in that were snatched away from them in 2016. They may have won those back, but only by a small margin - definitely not safe for the Democrats anymore.

The map has definitely changed.

So what's this about then? Looks to me like an attempt to ignore losses in the court cases and ignore the election results and appoint the electors to Trump.

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/Le ... onId=32628

The coup is underway.

I saw parts of the hearing. Those in that meeting appeared to realize that the election in Pennsylvania was corrupted beyond belief. Did you read the brief? It appears also that Pennsylvania wanted the next step to be performed. The Democrats did a pretty piss poor job of presenting their case against this action. How does that translate into a coup? Not seeing this at all.

I don’t think any of us are qualified to make that assessment

Maybe the courts should decide

A Federal judge, appointed by Trump, ruled today that the Trump campaigns claims of fraud in PA are "without merit". Yet in that exact same state the legislature is trying to overturn the election?

Whether they will succeed, I don't know. So far the PA speaker and house majority leader have not indicated that they support this bill -- but it's extraordinarily undemocratic.

Now this from Trump's legal team:

https://mobile.twitter.com/JennaEllisEs ... 0065738754

"The activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania continues to cover up the allegations of massive fraud.

We are very thankful to have had the opportunity to present proof and the facts to the PA state legislature.

On to SCOTUS!"

She neglects to mention that the "activist" judge who called her case "without merit" was appointed by Trump and that the other two judges on the panel which unanimously ruled against her were also Republican appointments.

And I'm sure that since she can't win in court she's thankful that she can argue in the legislature where evidence doesn't need to be fact checked and the Trump campaign can bring political pressure, rather then legal arguments, to try and overturn the election.

No. My reason for this is, innocence until til proven guilty is tied to the punishment of prison, loss of freedom. It's an innocence/punishment paradigm.


The Home Depot example is more like an election, you're not leaving with the loot until you prove you paid for it.

For me I have my own way of seeing this, an alternate way than that of LC. We now have great reason or increasing evidence that I shit in your drinking water. You gonna drink the water? I'm gonna flush that water down the toilet and get a fresh batch.

Trump's pursuit of relief authorized in the constitution is not troubling.

What is troubling is Judges totally disinterested in even entertaining evidence of widespread fraud.

That's a biv news story.

PS... it's odd how so many Judges appointed by Republicans change their stripes. Perhaps it's a related issue?

We've seen so much intimidation, coercion, threats, graft, bribery, etc all coming from the left....

Not making accusations but it's an alarming trend.

Maybe they were friends of Epstien?

They did. They ruled there wasn't. There's about 40 judges now that have ruled against these claims.

Are all 40 part of some huge conspiracy, even the Trump appointees?

At some point you need to open up your mind to the possibility that the claims of fraud are a scam, that there wasn't fraud, and it's just Trump trying to talk his way out of an election he actually lost.