Bill Clinton is asked about his connections to child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein

[2bynight]

How do you know they're lies?

Because absolutely no proof has been brought to bear that could be ruled upon in a court of law. If there was solid proof of corruption that could have changed the presidential election the republican party would have pounced on it and sent it to the Supreme Court. There is no way a nationwide conspiracy occured that would not have been captured. Even republican governors and republican states attorneys have stated there was no cheating in their states. So yea - its just the big lie conjured up by a man who could not bear to lose to another man he called sleepy Joe. He thought he was invincible and no one is invincible.

[NCRAVEN]

Because absolutely no proof has been brought to bear that could be ruled upon in a court of law. If there was solid proof of corruption that could have changed the presidential election the republican party would have pounced on it and sent it to the Supreme Court. There is no way a nationwide conspiracy occured that would not have been captured. Even republican governors and republican states attorneys have stated there was no cheating in their states. So yea - its just the big lie conjured up by a man who could not bear to lose to another man he called sleepy Joe. He thought he was invincible and no one is invincible.

Oh... so now republicans are the good guys.

[steelerhater]

Because absolutely no proof has been brought to bear that could be ruled upon in a court of law. If there was solid proof of corruption that could have changed the presidential election the republican party would have pounced on it and sent it to the Supreme Court. There is no way a nationwide conspiracy occured that would not have been captured. Even republican governors and republican states attorneys have stated there was no cheating in their states. So yea - its just the big lie conjured up by a man who could not bear to lose to another man he called sleepy Joe. He thought he was invincible and no one is invincible.

The fact that courts wouldn’t accept it doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. The courts knew that if they accepted any evidence the left would’ve burned down half the country. We would’ve seen riots much worse than the previous year.

[Greg]

Says the man who actually believes the right wing lies that the election was stolen.

And another ad hominem attack.

I don't have to believe anything from "the right wing." I can do math and think logically.

[Drain Bamage]

Says the man who actually believes the right wing lies that the election was stolen.

I don't see how this can be an insult, at this point it just seems like a legit concern. Did elections always take weeks to determine a winner? Drawing it out is not good for confidence in the vote, which should be a top priority. But no, it needs to take 14x longer (2 weeks?) and so we get videos of fraudulent looking things real or misleading. In the meantime the other guy slowly gains the lead to win by less than 1% in every competitive state. And you expect people to trust that then turn out to vote?

[Greg]

I don't see how this can be an insult, at this point it just seems like a legit concern. Did elections always take weeks to determine a winner? Drawing it out is not good for confidence in the vote, which should be a top priority. But no, it needs to take 14x longer (2 weeks?) and so we get videos of fraudulent looking things real or misleading. In the meantime the other guy slowly gains the lead to win by less than 1% in every competitive state. And you expect people to trust that then turn out to vote?

I don't have a link but have heard/read that once again Philadelphia area polls had more votes than registered voters. But it's all made up nonsense.

[ReedInTheWind]

I don't see how this can be an insult, at this point it just seems like a legit concern. Did elections always take weeks to determine a winner? Drawing it out is not good for confidence in the vote, which should be a top priority. But no, it needs to take 14x longer (2 weeks?) and so we get videos of fraudulent looking things real or misleading. In the meantime the other guy slowly gains the lead to win by less than 1% in every competitive state. And you expect people to trust that then turn out to vote?

Well for precedent, I can think of no better example than in Florida in 2000. https://floridaphoenix.com/2020/07/2...orida-in-2020/

It took 36 days to determine if Bush or Gore won the state that determines who won the Presidential election. Delays in counting, recounts, all those things are fairly common. Every single election.

[Drain Bamage]

Well for precedent, I can think of no better example than in Florida in 2000. https://floridaphoenix.com/2020/07/2...orida-in-2020/

It took 36 days to determine if Bush or Gore won the state that determines who won the Presidential election. Delays in counting, recounts, all those things are fairly common. Every single election.

You can think of no better example because that was the only other time it took more than a day.

[Terpsfan82]

Well for precedent, I can think of no better example than in Florida in 2000. https://floridaphoenix.com/2020/07/2...orida-in-2020/

It took 36 days to determine if Bush or Gore won the state that determines who won the Presidential election. Delays in counting, recounts, all those things are fairly common. Every single election.

But......but.....that was different (quoting Red from 'Friday')

[Mirko Crocop]

But......but.....that was different (quoting Red from 'Friday')

Yes, one state with pencils and punch ballots from 22 years ago versus multiple states using the latest advances in technology in 2022. Practically the same thing.

Why not cite the election of 1876 while you are at it...

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

[Drain Bamage]

But......but.....that was different (quoting Red from 'Friday')

Didn't imply it was good in 2000 either. I was too young, were people suspicious of fraud back then? I suspect it's true that as elections drag on counting confidence goes down. Once you lose that alone you no longer have elections even if nobody cheated.

My guess going forward is we either get super close races that go for weeks or a clean cut Democrats win everything as soon as plausible deniability kicks in.

[CarrollCoRaven]

Yes, one state with pencils and punch ballots from 22 years ago versus multiple states using the latest advances in technology in 2022. Practically the same thing.

Why not cite the election of 1876 while you are at it...

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

I didn't really follow politics back then but just remember the term hanging chad, which I believe was the big concern as to whether a vote counted. If the punched out hole was fully gone or still hanging on. Since then we've gone 2 steps forward and 3 steps back starting in 2020, even with all the improved technology. If a ballot is not at the post office, drop box, or election center on election day, it should not be counted, period. Election day should be the cut off day, no exceptions. If you're too stupid to get your vote in by then, you don't deserve to vote. Voting should not be an after thought. To be still counting votes a week later is a joke. Why should anyone think it's legit anymore.