Election fraud

[Magical Realist]

I've already cited, in this very thread, precedent for multiple states not sending any electors at all. With enough of those, Biden doesn't reach the 270 elector votes necessary to win and it is decided in the House.

Which states have indicated they are not sending electors? Citation please..

[Syne]

I've already cited, in this very thread, precedent for multiple states not sending any electors at all. With enough of those, Biden doesn't reach the 270 elector votes necessary to win and it is decided in the House.

Which states have indicated they are not sending electors? Citation please..

Who said any states were indicating anything? o_O
I said legal and historical precedent exists.

[Magical Realist]

I've already cited, in this very thread, precedent for multiple states not sending any electors at all. With enough of those, Biden doesn't reach the 270 elector votes necessary to win and it is decided in the House.

Which states have indicated they are not sending electors? Citation please..

Who said any states were indicating anything? o_O
I said legal and historical precedent exists.

Then you're just making shit up because you have nothing else. This Monday the electors will vote a majority for Biden as dictated by the popular vote and Trump will have to admit he lost. It's just the way it is. Biden won and the election wasn't rigged. Man up and accept the facts.

[Syne]

Which states have indicated they are not sending electors? Citation please..

Who said any states were indicating anything? o_O
I said legal and historical precedent exists.

Then you're just making shit up because you have nothing else. This Monday the electors will vote a majority for Biden as dictated by the popular vote and Trump will have to admit he lost. It's just the way it is. Biden won and the election wasn't rigged. Man up and accept the facts.

No, you're still claiming premature victory because you still don't understand all the steps in the process.
Even assuming the electors are all sent and all vote as the election currently stands, that vote is not final until it's voted on by a joint session of Congress on January 6th. Democrats have objected to elector votes many times, starting in 1969 as well as in 2000 and 2016, and if Republicans do this time, it would be their first. And even then, the Constitution only sets inauguration day, January 20th, as the only date by which the election must be settled.

I've posted ample evidence, including video, of election fraud, but you're not man enough to even look at it and try to refute it. You just keep your nose buried up the ass of leftist rags. Too bad your supposed certainty cannot face all the evidence. The facts are that there was election fraud AND Biden could still win. And while you deny the least bit of the former, I've never denied the latter at all. I accept both.

But then, even if you did deign to look at any evidence, we all know you don't care, as long as you get your way. That's how Democrats cheat without any necessity for a conspiracy. Just rely on the good ol' moral relativism to justify anything at all.

[Zinjanthropos]

Maybe they better check US armed forces’ mail-in ballots. 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/...-navy-game

Do you think Joe would get same reaction or were the cadets ordered to cheer Trump? Hope it’s not disrespect for the new leader. Sounds like maybe Biden gets fragged if he takes point.

Syne: the military is or always has been pro Republican leadership?

[Yazata]

the military is or always has been pro Republican leadership?

I think that it's complicated.

Down in the ranks and in the lower officer corps, particularly in front-line combat units, soldiers tend to be conservative. But in the upper officer corps, particularly among general officers occupying desks in Pentagon offices, there's a growing amount of political correctness. Hence the US military's primary concern these days (and almost certainly under the new administration) is moving away from ability to fight and defeat a determined and competent enemy, towards bogus "social change" priorities like making sure that military units have a sufficient number of transvestites.

The same thing is true of the police. The average rank-and-file cop is quite conservative. That's why the left hates them so. But big city police chiefs are typically political appointees, more politician than cop. They get their top job by having the right race and "gender", and for having sufficiently "progressive" politics.

But it's even more complicated than that. Many of the top officers in the Pentagon may claim to be ostensible 'conservatives', but they are conservatives of the G.W. Bush sort. Social liberals, they are the architects of what they perceive as a muscular foreign policy that had the American military fighting in simultaneous foreign wars in every imaginable shithole on the planet, with no visible endgame or exit strategy. (Apart from the foreigners adopting "liberal democracy" and becoming just like us, which was never going to happen.) Of course it wasn't those generals getting their arms and legs blown off.

These kind of people (I guess that they are often called "neoconservatives") absolutely hate the Trump foreign policy of bringing the troops home. They are globalists diametrically opposed to Trump's idea that he was elected President of the United States, not the world. They almost rebelled at Trump vetoing a big US troop buildup in Syria. This after the Obama CIA more or less fomented the civil war there, arming and funding a fanciful "Free Syrian Army" that existed only on paper. A policy that resulted in total destruction of the country, hundreds of thousands of Syrian dead and the empowerment of no end of noxious Islamists like ISIS. Was that Obama's fault or the fault of the generals that pushed the policy at every opportunity?

So between the flat-out left-wing Pentagon desk-jockeys more interested in advancing social-change agendas than they are in combat effectiveness, and the Bushite "neoconservatives" out to save every foreigner from themselves and remake the world, there's lots of hostility to Trumpism in the Pentagon. But far less among the actual soldiers, sailors and airmen who would be the ones dying in all the endless wars to remake the world in America's image, whether the world wants to be remade or not.

So when the cadets cheered Trump, I think that they were indicating where they stand with regards to all of the forces pulling at the military these days.

[Syne]

Yeah, Yaz has it right. The military in general is typically pro-Republican because Republicans have long been more pro-military than Democrats. There's just more of the grunts than the generals. Not sure, but it seems like the higher your rank in the military the more political it gets. But I guess that's true of almost any job. It's just that office politics doesn't tend to align with governmental politics quite like the politicized military does. And there's also the factor of military officials seeking funding from whichever party is in control, which could also motive a lot of pandering.

I agree that the cadets cheering for Trump was very likely genuine and impromptu.

[Zinjanthropos]

Tongue in cheek...Sounds like the US needs the armed forces home just to protect the citizens from themselves. 

Surely though, there must be agreements between US & their ‘allies’ that calls for American military aid. Still a lot of bad guys out there.

[Yazata]

Surely though, there must be agreements between US & their ‘allies’ that calls for American military aid. Still a lot of bad guys out there.

I couldn't agree more. The US, to say nothing of its allies, are stronger together than individually. So alliances are vital.

Of course, it's hard to imagine Afghanistan or Iraq as allies. Or Syria or Yemen, or any of the rest of them.

Even Europe is increasingly iffy. During the Cold War, NATO actually made sense. There was the Iron Curtain and the Warsaw Pact, sitting right on the other side. But now, Europe doesn't really face any credible conventional military threat. (Certainly the small Baltic republics do, but not Germany or France or Spain.) Everybody shrieks "Russia! Russia! Russia!" over and over in a hysterical way that nobody used to. But Russia is a mere shadow of the power of the old Soviet Union. Its Warsaw Pact allies are now in NATO. And the European Union has the wealth, industry and engineering prowess to defend themselves from Russia if they only had the will. 

So it looks to me like NATO has become little more than a way for the Europeans to out-source their defense to the United States at US expense, while they spend their money on their welfare states. If Europe ever faces a threat, the mighty US is obligated by treaty to fight yet another war for them. Meanwhile they can spend a fraction of what they have agreed to spend in serene confidence that the US will always be there. When Trump even dared to suggest that we might not be unless they lived up to their obligations to the alliance, the hysteria was palpable and Trump was once again excoriated for even suggesting it.

Meanwhile the new rising superpower, the biggest geopolitical rival to the US, is China. And if the US ever gets into a war with China, does anyone believe that Europe would be any help? Even if they wanted to be, do any of them still have the ability to project military power in that part of the world?

That's why the US has been interested in more military cooperation with Japan, India and Australia. (And that idea's been excoriated and ridiculed too.)

[Magical Realist]

Wisconsin Supreme Court tosses another Trump election lawsuit

https://www.kiiitv.com/article/news/nati...3PAs-F258U

"The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump's lawsuit attempting to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the battleground state, ending Trump's legal challenges in state court about an hour before the Electoral College was to meet to cast the state's 10 votes for Biden."