Film, Media & TV4 mins ago
Trump's Executive Order
115 Answers
I think we may be about to witness something extraordinary with regards to the USA election.
It would appear that two years ago, Trump declared a “national emergency” to deal with foreign and domestic election interference. It was enacted under an Executive Order called “Executive Order on Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election” and was signed by him on 12th September 2018:
https:/
In essence, this gives him unprecedented powers to investigate and prosecute electoral fraud.
There's a long and detailed article here that goes into much more depth about it:
https:/
It would appear that two years ago, Trump declared a “national emergency” to deal with foreign and domestic election interference. It was enacted under an Executive Order called “Executive Order on Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election” and was signed by him on 12th September 2018:
https:/
In essence, this gives him unprecedented powers to investigate and prosecute electoral fraud.
There's a long and detailed article here that goes into much more depth about it:
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by birdie1971. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//A better question to ask is why the Democrats who are supposed to have rigged this election forgot to do the same in the Congressional ballots, which have gone pretty badly for them (losing seats in the House when they were expected to gain, and failing to capture the senate).//
Jeez, I left school when I was 14 and I can answer that.
When you're getting 10c a ballot you don't fill the whole flumping thing out. (especially, as it transpired, the counters will fill in all the details for you)
Jeez, I left school when I was 14 and I can answer that.
When you're getting 10c a ballot you don't fill the whole flumping thing out. (especially, as it transpired, the counters will fill in all the details for you)
“ you don't fill the whole flumping thing out”
That is of course the explanation for why Biden will be president regardless of the missing evidence that anything untoward actually happened, which is the important bit.
He was always likely to prosper from a higher turnout in the presidential election
That is of course the explanation for why Biden will be president regardless of the missing evidence that anything untoward actually happened, which is the important bit.
He was always likely to prosper from a higher turnout in the presidential election
// When you're getting 10c a ballot you don't fill the whole thing out. Especially, as it transpired, the counters will fill in all the details for you//
the whole thing doesnt hang together - or hang out.
Counters will do the job for you ( whilst you pocket 10 cents) and the counters get nothing for doing so - so they will do any even worse job innit?
even at 14 I cd see such arguments werent valid
the whole thing doesnt hang together - or hang out.
Counters will do the job for you ( whilst you pocket 10 cents) and the counters get nothing for doing so - so they will do any even worse job innit?
even at 14 I cd see such arguments werent valid
now more seriously folks even for 14 y o
the way I think the game will go is ....
Biden will insist he cant interim plan wivvart Trumps say so. as tho Trump has hired all the experts and so there is no one Biden can hire. - - the deaths in America will occur until Jan 21
the deaths will pan out in early 2021 as is happening in Europe and the experts dont really understand why ( see Nature - why are deaths falling?)
Biden will say - me me me - it is only because I took power in Jan 2020 that this is happening and the measures I introduced that trump failed to
and portray Trump to be a baby killer
and that will screw the Georgia republican re election Jan 21 AND trump s re election chances 2024.
the way I think the game will go is ....
Biden will insist he cant interim plan wivvart Trumps say so. as tho Trump has hired all the experts and so there is no one Biden can hire. - - the deaths in America will occur until Jan 21
the deaths will pan out in early 2021 as is happening in Europe and the experts dont really understand why ( see Nature - why are deaths falling?)
Biden will say - me me me - it is only because I took power in Jan 2020 that this is happening and the measures I introduced that trump failed to
and portray Trump to be a baby killer
and that will screw the Georgia republican re election Jan 21 AND trump s re election chances 2024.
Well, I said I'd wait until the end of the week to hear some major announcement and it looks like we now have it. I shall link the video below. Watch the whole thing if you can but if you want the real meat of it without having to listen to Rudy Giuliani for 38 minutes, the bombshell drops with Sidney Powell explaining how the “Dominion” voting machines and software are hopelessly compromised and exploited by people who I can only describe as evil:
https:/
https:/
Browsing around YouTube, I came across a video from the Guardian with the title, “Giuliani baselessly links the latest election fraud claims to 'communist money' from Venezuela” - referencing the video above.
I guess that the word “baselessly” has changed its meaning since I last looked in a dictionary. I thought that word meant 'unfounded' or 'without merit'. Apparently it now must mean something entirely different. Why? Well, witness testimony is evidence. It can be challenged in court of course, but the fact remains that it is evidence. Giuliani claims that he has an affidavit (ie. a document that is the equivalent to standing in front of a judge and testifying that you swear to tell the whole true and nothing but the truth — which, if found to be false, can land you in prison for perjury) from a person who says that he was present when the “Dominion” vote rigging was explained to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. If true (ie. that Giuliani has the aforementioned affidavit) then the claim of baselessness by the Guardian is itself baseless.
I strongly suspect that the affidavit in question exists. Whether it's accurate or not is debateable but for the Guardian to assert that Giuliani's claims are “baseless” is nothing short of gas lighting the public.
I guess that the word “baselessly” has changed its meaning since I last looked in a dictionary. I thought that word meant 'unfounded' or 'without merit'. Apparently it now must mean something entirely different. Why? Well, witness testimony is evidence. It can be challenged in court of course, but the fact remains that it is evidence. Giuliani claims that he has an affidavit (ie. a document that is the equivalent to standing in front of a judge and testifying that you swear to tell the whole true and nothing but the truth — which, if found to be false, can land you in prison for perjury) from a person who says that he was present when the “Dominion” vote rigging was explained to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. If true (ie. that Giuliani has the aforementioned affidavit) then the claim of baselessness by the Guardian is itself baseless.
I strongly suspect that the affidavit in question exists. Whether it's accurate or not is debateable but for the Guardian to assert that Giuliani's claims are “baseless” is nothing short of gas lighting the public.
Theland
I agree. I'm dismayed at the mainstream media all chanting the same mantra – 'there's no evidence, there's no evidence'.
There is evidence. Sworn witness testimony is evidence. Video footage is evidence. Photos are evidence. But the mainstream media are acting like petulant children. They're effectively closing their collective eyes and claiming that they cannot see any evidence of vote counting irregularities. Hardly surprising, seeing as they're refusing to look.
I agree. I'm dismayed at the mainstream media all chanting the same mantra – 'there's no evidence, there's no evidence'.
There is evidence. Sworn witness testimony is evidence. Video footage is evidence. Photos are evidence. But the mainstream media are acting like petulant children. They're effectively closing their collective eyes and claiming that they cannot see any evidence of vote counting irregularities. Hardly surprising, seeing as they're refusing to look.
Mibn2cweus
If you've watch the video I linked, you'd have to be almost pathologically obtuse not to agree that there is prima facie evidence of a massive, coordinated vote-count fraud across multiple states in the USA. It looks to all intents and purposes like a coup d'état.
I've been listening to the radio and reading the press today (mainstream media [MSM]) and all they want to talk about is Giuliani's hair dye running down his cheeks because of the heat from the lights. If they mentioned the substance of his allegations at all they described them as 'unfounded'. They all said that there was 'no evidence'.
They're all saying *exactly* the same thing. I find this rather frightening and disturbing. And so should you and anyone who values democracy regardless of your views on Trump.
Apparently, sworn eye-witness testimony is no longer 'evidence' as far as the MSM is concerned. I wonder how they think that the likes of Stuart Hall, Fred Talbot, Rolf Harris, et al, were convicted? Not to mention Jimmy Savile. No physical evidence, just eye-witness testimony. But apparently, that's not 'evidence' any more; that's just 'unfounded allegations'.
As I've said many times, I don't care for Trump. But I do care about free and fair elections – they are the cornerstone of all democracies. Introduce wide scale corruption into the vote-count system and democracy dies the death of a thousand cuts. And there's no coming back once the corrupt ones are in power since they control the levers of power.
The bottom line is, the only people who are dismissing the hundreds of sworn witness testimonies, video footage and photographs as being non-evidential are those who are fundamentally opposed to Trump on an ideological level. No amount of evidence will convince them that fraud occurred.
There is a name for that type of behaviour: irrational.
If you've watch the video I linked, you'd have to be almost pathologically obtuse not to agree that there is prima facie evidence of a massive, coordinated vote-count fraud across multiple states in the USA. It looks to all intents and purposes like a coup d'état.
I've been listening to the radio and reading the press today (mainstream media [MSM]) and all they want to talk about is Giuliani's hair dye running down his cheeks because of the heat from the lights. If they mentioned the substance of his allegations at all they described them as 'unfounded'. They all said that there was 'no evidence'.
They're all saying *exactly* the same thing. I find this rather frightening and disturbing. And so should you and anyone who values democracy regardless of your views on Trump.
Apparently, sworn eye-witness testimony is no longer 'evidence' as far as the MSM is concerned. I wonder how they think that the likes of Stuart Hall, Fred Talbot, Rolf Harris, et al, were convicted? Not to mention Jimmy Savile. No physical evidence, just eye-witness testimony. But apparently, that's not 'evidence' any more; that's just 'unfounded allegations'.
As I've said many times, I don't care for Trump. But I do care about free and fair elections – they are the cornerstone of all democracies. Introduce wide scale corruption into the vote-count system and democracy dies the death of a thousand cuts. And there's no coming back once the corrupt ones are in power since they control the levers of power.
The bottom line is, the only people who are dismissing the hundreds of sworn witness testimonies, video footage and photographs as being non-evidential are those who are fundamentally opposed to Trump on an ideological level. No amount of evidence will convince them that fraud occurred.
There is a name for that type of behaviour: irrational.
Even this post is too much attention to that nonsense.
Trump's claims are being rejected in court after court after court -- on more than one occasion, by judges Trump himself appointed. Trump supporters in Georgia, the ones who led and oversaw the count, found nothing and certified Biden's victory there. Oh, and, in case you missed it, Republicans made gains in the House, held most Senate races, gained one Governorship, made gains in several State legislatures, etc etc. If this were a coup, it's a grossly incompetent coup.
He's got nothing. You've got nothing. He lost, legitimately, clearly, and decisively. He should accept
Trump's claims are being rejected in court after court after court -- on more than one occasion, by judges Trump himself appointed. Trump supporters in Georgia, the ones who led and oversaw the count, found nothing and certified Biden's victory there. Oh, and, in case you missed it, Republicans made gains in the House, held most Senate races, gained one Governorship, made gains in several State legislatures, etc etc. If this were a coup, it's a grossly incompetent coup.
He's got nothing. You've got nothing. He lost, legitimately, clearly, and decisively. He should accept
> the evidence of election fraud on a massive scale is almost undeniable
Why the almost? It's either undeniable or it isn't.
You're effectively saying that the world's greatest superpower and democracy was incapable of holding a fair election, and ran it in a style worthy of a tinpot dictatorship. And it happened on Trump's watch, and just happened to coincide with Trump losing.
That's fine for you to say, but if Trump wants to say it ... be prepared for the consequences!
Why the almost? It's either undeniable or it isn't.
You're effectively saying that the world's greatest superpower and democracy was incapable of holding a fair election, and ran it in a style worthy of a tinpot dictatorship. And it happened on Trump's watch, and just happened to coincide with Trump losing.
That's fine for you to say, but if Trump wants to say it ... be prepared for the consequences!
jim360
Are you not in favour of free and fair elections Jim?
Do you not agree that literally hundreds of sworn witness statements constitutes copious amount of prima facie evidence of wide spread vote-count fraud? If not, why not?
You say, “Even this post is too much attention to that nonsense.”. Why are you opposed to even highlighting this matter Jim? Don't you think that the election of the next President of the USA should be free of even a whiff of corruption?
You further say, “He's got nothing. You've got nothing...”. I've got nothing – what, me? What do you mean that *I've* got nothing?!? I have no skin in this game Jim. I don't like Trump. If Biden won legitimately then good for him. But I want to get to the truth and the fact is, truth does not appear to be on the side of the Democrats at this juncture.
Is eye-witness testimony evidence Jim? If not, why not? And if it is, why do you appear to want to dismiss it without further investigation?
Are you not in favour of free and fair elections Jim?
Do you not agree that literally hundreds of sworn witness statements constitutes copious amount of prima facie evidence of wide spread vote-count fraud? If not, why not?
You say, “Even this post is too much attention to that nonsense.”. Why are you opposed to even highlighting this matter Jim? Don't you think that the election of the next President of the USA should be free of even a whiff of corruption?
You further say, “He's got nothing. You've got nothing...”. I've got nothing – what, me? What do you mean that *I've* got nothing?!? I have no skin in this game Jim. I don't like Trump. If Biden won legitimately then good for him. But I want to get to the truth and the fact is, truth does not appear to be on the side of the Democrats at this juncture.
Is eye-witness testimony evidence Jim? If not, why not? And if it is, why do you appear to want to dismiss it without further investigation?
What evidence?
In Michigan, one lawsuit (so far only at the preliminary stage) has already been described by the judge as "...mere speculation" and that "[Trump's lawyers] do not offer any affidavits or specific eyewitness evidence to substantiate their assertions" of potential fraud in absentee ballots. I'd be happy to evaluate the evidence, but Trump et al have to start producing that evidence and stop merely claiming its existence. But, as I say, the whole claim of a country-wide conspiracy is manifestly nonsense, given how successful Republicans were.
Is it so hard to believe that Trump was, after all, not personally popular?
In Michigan, one lawsuit (so far only at the preliminary stage) has already been described by the judge as "...mere speculation" and that "[Trump's lawyers] do not offer any affidavits or specific eyewitness evidence to substantiate their assertions" of potential fraud in absentee ballots. I'd be happy to evaluate the evidence, but Trump et al have to start producing that evidence and stop merely claiming its existence. But, as I say, the whole claim of a country-wide conspiracy is manifestly nonsense, given how successful Republicans were.
Is it so hard to believe that Trump was, after all, not personally popular?
