Trump

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

They didn't use identical tactics that Trump did. But they (a small number of them) tried to get the electors to not vote for Trump, they tried to tell America that the election wasn't free and fair. At some high level, that's similar to what Trump did.

The electors were supposed to be supporting Clinton and didn't. You have it backwards. Pay attention...as for Russia, they likely did heavily influence the election.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The electors were supposed to be supporting Clinton and didn't. Pay attention...as for Russia, they likely did heavily influence the election.

You pay attention...I'm not talking about what the electors did...I'm talking about what democrats asked them to do.

What the electors did, and what democrats asked them to do, wwre two very different things.

Democrats did two separate and distinct things, in an effort to overturn the election. That their efforts ultimately failed, doesn't mean that's not what they were trying to do.

(1) they asked electors to not vote for the winner of the election (Trump). This necessarily means they were asking the electors to change the outcome of the election.

(2) house democrats challenged the election results in some states, in fact they challenged more states than the two states they GOP challenged in 2020.

From wikipedia...

"The faithless electors who opposed Donald Trump were part of a movement dubbed the Hamilton Electors co-founded by Micheal Baca of Colorado and Bret Chiafalo of Washington. The movement attempted to find 37 Republican electors willing to vote for a different Republican in an effort to deny Donald Trump a majority in the Electoral College and force a contingent election in the House of Representatives"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithl...ntial_election

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

From wikipedia...

"The faithless electors who opposed Donald Trump were part of a movement dubbed the Hamilton Electors co-founded by Micheal Baca of Colorado and Bret Chiafalo of Washington. The movement attempted to find 37 Republican electors willing to vote for a different Republican in an effort to deny Donald Trump a majority in the Electoral College and force a contingent election in the House of Representatives"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithl...ntial_election

Per your on wiki, they wanted to get a different Republican elected. My god…

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Per your on wiki, they wanted to get a different Republican elected. My god…

a different republican than the one who won the election. therefore, they wanted to overturn the election.

asking 2016 electors to vote for anyone other the. the person who won the state, is attempt to undo the election.

my god indeed.

you’re saying that attempting to install someone else, but who’s in the same party as the election winner, isn’t an attempt to overturn an election?

in what universe does that make sense?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Per your on wiki, they wanted to get a different Republican elected. My god…

so if people want to install someone other than the winner of the election, simply because they happen to despise the winner of the election, that’s not necessarily “overturning the election”?

we’d all just love to hear you justify that.

using your logic…if the gop somehow prevented Biden from getting certified, and instead they convinced the electors to cast all their votes for Joe Manchin…. you would say that’s NOT overturning an election.

do you really expect any of us to believe, you really agree with this?

you’re making up stupid gibberish because (1) you lost the argument, and (2) you’re too small to admit it.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so if people want to install someone other than the winner of the election, simply because they happen to despise the winner of the election, that’s not necessarily “overturning the election”?

One of the Clinton electors voted instead for a Native American against the Keystone pipeline.

They’re simple protest stunts Jim.

you’re making up stupid gibberish because (1) you lost the argument, and (2) you’re too small to admit it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

One of the Clinton electors voted instead for a Native American against the Keystone pipeline.

They’re simple protest stunts Jim.

please define “overturning an election”, if it’s not defined as installing someone other than who won.

if the fact that it was a futile effort means it wasn’t a big deal, then
neither was january 6. that also was a failed stunt that obviously never had any chance of succeeding.

Do you EVER stop trying to have it both ways?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

One of the Clinton electors voted instead for a Native American against the Keystone pipeline.

They’re simple protest stunts Jim.

i proved mathematically, that the house republicans challenging results in PA and AZ couldnt shift enough electoral votes to help Trump win. Even if their challenge worked, Biden would still have won.

So if according to you, efforts which are doomed from the start are harmless stunts, why doesn’t that qualify as such?

answer - you only apply that logic to democrats.

destroyed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i proved mathematically, that the house republicans challenging results in PA and AZ couldnt shift enough electoral votes to help Trump win. Even if their challenge worked, Biden would still have won.

So if according to you, efforts which are doomed from the start are harmless stunts, why doesn’t that qualify as such?

answer - you only apply that logic to democrats.

destroyed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So in Jim’s world the attempt only matters if it works. How do you argue with that logic?

So the Pennsylvanian and a Arizona legislature want to challenge and dismiss votes for Biden On the same ballot many were re elected or won .. again MAGA logic at its finest

But Jim’s or Scott don’t seemed to be bothered by the failure of Trump supporters and his administration to participate in the hearing refusing lawfully subpoena. Claiming privilege they don’t have, Hoping and praying that gop takes over the house and make it all go away ..

Why do you support them in this obstruction
if you agree with them that it was just a few yahoos as they have suggested

Seems like a. Lot of effort to keep a lid on 3 days in the Oval Office. Remember Trump was working and Americans have the right. To see that work
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

...as for Russia, they likely did heavily influence the election.

not they didn't......