re: Herschel Walker considering 2022 senate run

Here's the thing, just because you don't want to believe it doesn't mean it actually happened. This was an election cycle unlike any other. We had a very large number of people vote and a very large number of mail in votes. Typically mail in votes come later after the in person of day votes. Democrats tend to mail in votes for more than Republicans especially given the fact that Trump kept telling his voters to do it in person.

So naturally more of Biden's votes would come in later.

quote:

---

quote:
So in the entire country out of all of the votes, you contend that there was zero fraud?

There is no evidence of mass fraud certainly not enough to win an election

---

Does that sound different than

quote:

---

quote:
There is documented fraud.


No there isn't, 

---

You are like every other libtard.

I claim there IS fraud.
You claim those are lies and that the court proves it.
I challenge you to a bet and you cower behind my original statement that the widespread fraud probably wasnt enough to overturn the election.

But who knows? People like you claim facts (widespread fraud) are lies until you have to pay attention closer than the mainstream media wants anyone to do.

Remember, I told you I already knew why you were doing this before you told me? It's obvious. You're a bleeding heart looney liberal. It's very obvious. Hunter Biden could come up to you, pull your pants down, and tie your tallywhacker in a knot on national tv, and you deny it ever happened.

quote:

---

Expect it wasnt, there was absolutely no evidence of mass fraud.

---

Sure was. I already mentioned the unconstitutional changes to election law that preceded the election that allowed for more fraud to be perpetrated via mail-in ballots and lack of scrutiny on who was voting. But on top of that, there were tons of reasons why widespread fraud occurred as well as targeted fraud within battleground states that made all the difference in the election.

First of all, there was the common sense aspect: all of the bellwether indicators of a Trump victory were there. Enthusiasm for Trump was through the roof and enthusiasm for Biden was non-existent. Elections are almost always about who has more enthusiasm for their candidate. Then there was the fact that Trump increased his vote totals by over 10 million votes from his first election. Historically, when incumbents increase their votes, they win, and he did so by historic numbers, and he increased his support dramatically with blacks and Hispanics, which is something that generally doesn't happen with Republican candidates.

Trump won 18 of the 19 bellwether counties that have been a great indicator of who would win nationally. 18 of the 19 - yet he still lost. Winning Florida, Iowa, and Ohio almost always guarantee a win for the election due to those three states having a good cross-section of the population and Trump won them easily yet didn't carry the country? Biden also barely carried 500 counties while Trump carried over 2,500, which is another indicator of how "well" Biden did (not very). He had to carry all of the battleground states in order to win but managed to do it, reversing the poor trends he had only in those states. It was huge turnouts in the big Democrat cities in those states that put him over the top, and those are the places where they are fighting tooth and nail to not let anyone see what they were doing (fighting audits).

Then there was the gains Republicans made generally during the election. Not a single GOP incumbent in the House lost their race and the GOP actually gained 13 seats, even though there were more Republicans up for re-election than Democrats. In a year with an unpopular incumbent President and/or a popular opponent, that usually translates to the incumbent party losing seats. Or put another way, the winner of the Presidential race usually is a boon for their party in other races. Biden wasn't. We'd have to believe that so many Republicans hated Trump so much that they were willing to go out and vote for their party in other races but Biden for President, or that Democrats and Independents came out in droves to vote for Republicans in other races but not for Trump as President. Consider Trump gained more than 10 million more votes than he did in 2016, that seems extremely implausible, especially when you consider historical trends.

Then there were the individual problems identified by folks on the ground and data analysts and statisticians reviewing the voting data and trends. There were hundreds of sworn affidavits presented by those who witnessed vote tampering, switching, removal, and all sorts of nefarious transparency issues that prevented auditors from seeing what was going on during the counting process. Video of ballots being pulled out of a case from under a table in GA. Large gains going 99% for Biden (statistically implausible even in heavy Democrat districts) happening after poll watchers were kicked off the premises. Lack of chain of custody of ballots and ballots being brought in and counted after due dates.

quote:

---

A the court cases were thrown out, the Supreme Court, and his own AG said there's no evidence of such.

---

Again, the courts didn't really weigh in on any evidence as the core cases were thrown out for other issues beside merit. There were several cases started by others outside the Trump campaign that didn't have all of the evidence compiled, too. The AG also was in no position to make a statement as there was no formal investigation at the Federal level, so he could say what he wanted. Him being Trump's AG also doesn't mean much because he was stabbed in the back by just about everyone he appointed. It's crazy how many Judases there were in his admin. The swamp runs deep.

quote:

---

What is didiving the country is digging deeper into the conspiracy theory hole just because certain people refuse to accept reality or want to take advantage of others

---

Not at all. Simply believing a "conspiracy theory" doesn't do much to divide a country when if you removed that from the equation, so much else is being done to bring division. Like I said before, between leftist ideology, woke culture, and censorship of non-leftist values and ideas, there is plenty of division to go around. You don't have to even believe the election was stolen to see that Trump supporters are being castigated as racist terrorists who are unfit for participation in civil society and social discourse. Hell, there was even talk of re-education camps right after the election. How's that for unity?

quote:

---

Yes, but when there is a consensus it is almost always the truth.

---

lol... no. It just means a lot of people bought into the same message.

quote:

---

Cable news, on both the right and left, has done grievous harm to our democracy and civil discourse. Right-wing media, just like the left-wing media, is driven by the same profit motives which results in the sensationalizing of the truth, if not creating outright lies. If we go out and talk with people in our communities with whom we might have disagreements, we will find we agree on far more than we disagree

---

True, except the left-wing media has a near monopoly on the news. Out of all the networks that most people watch, how many are right-leaning? Fox? Even Fox wasn't friendly to Trump outside of the prominent personalities like Tucker and Hannity. Their coverage of the day-to-day wasn't much better than CNN's.

Point being, most people get their information from news sources that are parroting a singular message that doesn't often comport to the truth.

quote:

---

Many were dismissed substantively, as well. I'm still waiting to see this "evidence."

---

Submitted.

quote:

---

The historic norm regarding the filibuster is that (1) it was extremely rare to use and (2) a Senator actually had to speak on the floor. After Obama's election in 2008, the frequency of use by the filibuster tripled overnight. If you recall, McConnell said that his main legislative priority was "making Obama a one-term President." The GOP would filibuster bills they agreed with just to deprive Obama a win. That degree of obstruction is not the intent of the filibuster.

---

True, and politics is certainly played on both sides, but that wasn't my point. Republicans aren't the ones who are always rewriting the rules. The Democrats are the ones who are constantly acting like little tyrants, ruling according to what they wish rather than what has been established. They don't even respect the Constitution any longer and seek all sorts of ways to alter it without going through the one way that the Constitution provides for legitimate change.

quote:

---

I genuinely give Trump a TON of credit for helping to normalize relations between Israel and two Arab countries, but to call it "peace" is not really true because Israel was never at war with the UAE and Bahrain. Most contrary to your claim is that under Trump, the United States joined Saudi Arabia's war (arguably genocide) in Yemen. Just because we don't have ground troops in Yemen (though we do have ground troops on the Saudi side of the border treating their wounded soldiers and refueling their planes) doesn't mean it's not a war. A remotely guided thermobaric missile is just as bellicose as an 11B discharging his M4.

---

The word "peace" was thrown around by other countries during the time so I'm happy to go there. Instead of hostile relationships (not war, granted), Trump's admin helped to broker a working relationship. That's as close to "ME peace" as you can get outside of stopping an ongoing war, and it was historic. My point was that there was hardly a blip on the news radar about that.

“Proving” fraud with the mail in ballots is difficult, which is why it was a great plan. It is also why people are losing their shite and crying racism now that it will be harder to commit fraud. All that money that came in to GA from out of state wasn’t just used for commercials. I give them credit. They executed a good plan. Republicans realized they could not win the battle, but they knew how it was done and made it harder for them to cheat in future elections. Anyone who isn’t biased should be able to see this.

quote:

---

There are certainly a lot of ignorant people who trust the lies they are fed by the MSM, yes. Fortunately truth isn’t determined by consensus.

---

Unfortunately the non-mainstream, ultra-right wing media feeds preposterous lies to the ignorant...who lap it up (while many behind the curtain...including Trump...cash in).

The truth is determined by evidence...for which you have zero. Other than that the American Mussolini lost.

quote:

---

The courts dismissed the suits for lack of standing and mootness.

---

More nonsense spread around the alt-Right interweb of lies. Almost all of these cases can be accessed in public record. Many of these cases were heard and there was nothing.

3rd Circuit Court of Appeals: “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."

quote:

---

The Texas lawsuit, for example, provided a host of evidence, including the unconstitutional changes to election laws in the battleground states made by governors and AGs that had no authority to make such changes yet the lawsuit was tossed for reasons other than merit. The SCOTUS simply didn’t want to cause chaos by overturning an election. It had nothing to do with the evidence.

---

Also nonsense. And note same case was disregarded all the way up the chain. Supreme Court, even with 6 R-appointed justices, wasn't going to touch that bullshite.

quote:

---

If Biden really won handily, that truth would be confirmed.

---

It's already been confirmed. No credible court or official has provided anything to the contrary. As you chose to ignore, the investigation that Trump himself forced Barr to order led DoJ to conclude that there was no evidence of any systematic fraud. (Naturally Barr had to immediately resign, since Trump fires anyone who doesn't go along with his own fraud).

The Republican elections official in this very state called out Trump's scheme.

quote:

---

And like I said, there are still fights going on today in some of those key states regarding audits that Democrats are stonewalling.

---

More nonsense but good luck with the remaining audits. (There have already been two full recounts in GA that found nada).

quote:

---

If I recall correctly, it is the left that wants to change all our historic norms regarding filibusters, majorities vs. supermajorities in Congress and expanding the SCOTUS while purposefully preventing election integrity. But please explain how Trump was such a dictator that he put up with constant attacks and multiple bogus impeachments. Worst tyrant ever.

---

Filibusters are now nothing but an overused obstruction tool, which was not their intended purpose. Discussions about SCOTUS came about largely because of the hypocrisy of the handling of the Garland appointment in 2016 versus the Barrett nomination in 2020. The hypocrisy was so blatant from R's that it demonstrated that D's should no longer feel compelled to give them the same courtesy.

quote:

---

He certainly has a big ego but if he went into politics to feed it, he had no idea what he was in for because he was attacked nonstop. Not something an egomaniac deals with on purpose.

---

Poor thing. Maybe he should have lied less and made more of an attempt at being President of the US versus President only of his base?

Plenty of aspiring authoritarians seek more and more power and they take steps to undercut their critics, like every dictator in history. Trump tried it too...did everything in his power to undermine anyone who criticized him. Unfortunately for him, he ran into the fact that at least by a small majority, Americans did not want a dictator and certainly not one named Trump.

quote:

---

he gave away every paycheck he earned as President.

---

Maybe he should have reconsidered that...since he's going to spend the rest of his life defending himself against both criminal prosecutions and civil suits.

quote:

---

He delivered on most of his promises, too, which is something most Presidents can’t claim. And that was with everyone in D.C. fighting against him. It is incredible, really.

---

What did he do? He never got Mexico to pay for a wall; he presided over a big stock market run-up that had begun in the latter stages of Obama; he failed miserably at containing COVID (claiming for months that it was nothing to be concerned about); he ran up the national debt to a staggering amount in contrast to any prior Republican fiscal approach; and best of all, he many long-closeted white supremacists back out of the closet and into the Capital building. Not all that impressive, really...

quote:

---

But on that note, he literally created peace in the Middle East and no one reported on it except in passing because it was during an election year and the MSM didn’t want to give him credit.

---

lol... If that's true, he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.

quote:

---

Some idiots ran all round the Capital and took selfies while Trump was still giving his speech.

---

It was a little more than that, or so says a lot of video.

quote:

---

Unfortunately the non-mainstream, ultra-right wing media feeds preposterous lies to the ignorant...who lap it up (while many behind the curtain...including Trump...cash in).

---

There are all sorts of information that come from all sorts of places and there is no single arbiter of truth. People should read for themselves and come to their own conclusions. The MSM only pushes the lies that they want to push and they withhold the truth as much as they push lies or slanted views of actual events.

quote:

---

The truth is determined by evidence...for which you have zero. Other than that the American Mussolini lost.

---

The truth is the truth and it doesn't change with or without evidence. All evidence can do is help someone fully embrace the truth for what it is. That said, evidence isn't brute and must be interpreted. One of the biggest problems with the dissemination of information is not the evidence but how it is reported (interpreted).

That said, there was plenty of evidence presented in the various hearings at the state legislatures at the end of the year, including the things I mentioned previously.

quote:

---

More nonsense spread around the alt-Right interweb of lies. Almost all of these cases can be accessed in public record. Many of these cases were heard and there was nothing.

3rd Circuit Court of Appeals: “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."

---

It's not nonsense and if you read more than the first paragraph of the ruling from the 3rd Circuit (or the news article where you found it) then you would have seen that. Almost all of the cases were rejected due to legal standing or mootness. Even the one you quoted here.

That particular suit filed in PA was regarding unfair treatment in different polling places in PA where poll watchers weren't given sufficient access in Democrat precincts. The court dismissed the case with a few different reasons but the primary one was that the state law didn't have do what the Trump campaign thought it did (give equal access across the state). There was no presentation of all the evidence that has been accumulated of fraud because the specific case you cited wasn't about "fraud" specifically but about access, and the court determined that the state law didn't require the access that the campaign was seeking. It was a legal issue that didn't even address the many other problems in the election.

quote:

---

Also nonsense. And note same case was disregarded all the way up the chain. Supreme Court, even with 6 R-appointed justices, wasn't going to touch that bull shite.

---

It's not nonsense at all. Did you even read the filing? I did. All of it. It was compelling.

It was rejected because of standing: Texas wasn't considered the injured party.

quote:

---

It's already been confirmed. No credible court or official has provided anything to the contrary. As you chose to ignore, the investigation that Trump himself forced Barr to order led DoJ to conclude that there was no evidence of any systematic fraud. (Naturally Barr had to immediately resign, since Trump fires anyone who doesn't go along with his own fraud).

The Republican elections official in this very state called out Trump's scheme

---

It hasn't been confirmed at all, thus why the audits have been fought consistently by the Democrats.

Regarding the courts, that's been addressed. Regarding Barr, the DOJ didn't do a full investigation in less than a month. Barr's statement was that they looked into several specific complaints (he didn't mention which ones, to my knowledge) and said he couldn't find evidence of widespread fraud. In addition, he said that the issues at hand were not within the jurisdiction of the federal DOJ but were issues to be settled through audits within the states and through civil suits. That was an acknowledgement that they didn't do a through investigation, which sort of undermines the citation of the DOJ as proof that there was no evidence or that the truth of Biden's legitimate election has been "confirmed".

In regards to the Republicans in Georgia - they are the ones who created the mess through an unconstitutional changing of election laws outside of the state legislature.

quote:

---

More nonsense but good luck with the remaining audits. (There have already been two full recounts in GA that found nada)

---

Not nonsense, but I'm noticing a pattern here. Simply deny my statement and then provide either no concrete rebuttal to it or provide one that is only tangential to the issue at hand.

And no, recounts of bad numbers aren't going to change anything. An audit is what is needed, not simply recounts.

Oh, and as of last week, the state has still failed to provide chain of custody records for over 350,000 ballots when Biden won the state by only 11,000.

quote:

---

If there was no fraud, then you should have no issues with the new law....right?

---

Sounds like a logic fail on your part. Most Jim Crow laws were aimed at making it more difficult for blacks to vote by taking advantage of their lower economic position and other challenges they faced. It's all about making it difficult...not impossible. So if a lot of poor blacks don't own cars...hey...not our problem that they are required to get to special offices to obtain other IDs or to pay to get certified birth certificates. Yet folks who argue for these laws always claim they are fair and square. Just like they did in the days of poll taxes, literacy tests, property-ownership requirements, etc.

These new laws are quite transparent. Why reduce number of days that people can do mail-in voting when people overwhelmingly like the convenience of mail-in voting and there is no evidence of fraud? Would you not want voting to be as easy as possible? Simple...because Democratics and younger voters were proven more likely to utilize mail-in voting than Republicans. Why make it illegal to give out water to people waiting in voting lines? Simple...because voting wait times have on average been two to three times longer in poor black areas, which also typically have fewer voting locations.

This stuff is so transparent it's almost comical...and the targets are aware of it, so it might actually backfire in it's intended aim of suppressing minority voting. So in that sense, I actually am not too concerned about these laws (other than what they say about how far the Republican Party has fallen under Trump).

Trump himself once said said that if the popular vote is increased, "Republicans might never win another election." So the strategy has devolved to:

1. Gerrymandering
2. Voter suppression tactics to reduce minority turnout
3. Appeal to white grievance

No more coming up with sensible ideas in line with traditional Republican conservativism. Instead of coming up with ideas that would cause the most people to vote for them, they have to now resort to ways to suppress voting among some groups or creating districts to make it structurally impossible for another party to win.

It's pretty much become an anti-democracy party...which is why Trump is often labeled a fascist.

quote:

---

How does the new law make it more difficult to vote?

---

It doesn't. It's more of the "soft bigotry of low expectations" where white leftists think that black people are too stupid to do what other white, yellow, and brown people are capable of doing. These laws aren't impacting black people only so the response can only be that they disproportionally impact black people because they are too poor to get an ID or to make it to the polls on time, even though they weren't utilizing mail-in ballots at all prior to COVID.

It's just more of the same garbage where "RACISM!!!" is screamed every time Republicans do something that the left doesn't like. It's sad, but in this culture, it's effective, because no one wants to be seen as racist, even if the accusation is bogus.