Friends, tonight President Trump released a video that features what he says was "the most important speech" he has ever delivered as our Commander-in-Chief. I'm inclined to agree. In it, Trump lays out some of the evidence that proves rampant fraud and irregularities in the election, many of them intentional and designed to steal the election for Joe Biden. Trump made the point that all his accomplishments -- and you and I know there have been many -- pale in significance to the sacred duty he has to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the integrity of our democratic process. If Biden won the election, then of course Trump has a duty to step aside on January 20th. If Democrats stole the election, then Trump has an equally pressing duty to fight to hold on to the presidency, because a democratic system that falls victim to fraud once may never reestablish its integrity and credibility ever again. He's asking Americans, including federal judges and justices and state legislators, to look at the evidence rather than dismissing it. He's asking them to count only legal votes in determining who won the individual states. He's asking that fairness and transparency should define our democratic process, rather than a rush to judgement. And I'm asking, in turn: what kind of person would refuse any of these reasonable requests? The answer: a person who cheated their way to victory, or who suspects, in their heart of hearts, that their fellow Democrats may have done so. Well, there's too much at stake to sweep these matters under the rug. We need the fullest possible audit of the 2020 results. We need, for instance, signature verification in every battleground state, and in every contested race. President Trump didn't mention it, but even the thin Democratic majority in the House of Representatives is suspect, given the degree of fraud that appears to have occurred in 2020. Leave no stone unturned, I say! And never, never turn over the presidency to a man who obtained the office by fraudulent means. I encourage all of you to listen to President Trump's remarks, to examine the evidence, much of which I have compiled for you on this blog, and judge for yourselves... One thing is for sure: based on this speech, it sure doesn't sound like President Trump is in a mood to concede, and nor should he be! The battle goes on.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?506975-1/president-trump-statement-2020-vote
A little more evidence, for those of you keeping track:
Dr. Waddy. Trump's speech will be long remembered -- but not in a positive way! It illustrates what a petty, narcissistic whiner he is. It puts on full display all the conspiracy theories about this election that he is promoting.
ReplyDeleteThe speech is the best evidence yet of how Trump is one of the two worst presidents that we ever had. MLK is forever associated with the "I Have a Dream" speech. Trump will now be forever associated with the "I Won Bigly but was Cheated" speech.
Sad.
Wow, Rod. Wow. Speechless. Ray, help me out please. ((grin))
ReplyDeleteRod, you might want to consider what "active measures" your side will take if Trump does indeed refuse to leave office. You keep saying over and over again that "He can't do that!" Are you quite sure about that?
ReplyDeleteAnd I didn't hear him point to any arguments that weren't grounded in evidence. Are you denying that rules for mail-in ballots were changed? Are you denying that rejection rates for such ballots went close to zero in Dem areas? Are you denying the hundreds of affidavits have been submitted claiming fraud and malfeasance? Are you denying that Biden got bizarrely lopsided margins (99+%) in massive ballot dumps on election night? What precisely ARE you denying?
Dr. Waddy, lots of Trump's arguments were not grounded in evidence. I will get to that in a second. Were rules for mail-in ballots changed? Yes, almost all with the approval of state legislatures, secretaries of state, governors and/or judges. And those changes were in response to a pandemic that was raging in this country. I have heard charges that rejection rates were low. Though there have been charges that they were extremely low in Dem areas, I have not seen any evidence of such -- just charges. In addition, there had been lots of information distributed to voters about how to fill out ballots correctly (in addition to news about issues in the primaries), so having a low issue with mail-in ballots is not a surprise.
ReplyDeleteYes, there are hundreds of affidavits of people who think they saw something, or think that they heard something. There are folks who said they were ordered to back date ballots, while other folks who were there when the witnesses were denied that ever happened.
The 99% massive ballot dumps didn't happen. Mail-in ballots favored Biden, sometimes as high as 80%. But the "dumps" occurred because some states (like PA and WI) were not allowed to count the votes until election day. That's why you had those spikes.
The most bizarre conspiracy is that suggesting Dominion Votings Systems changed votes. Charges have said that Dominion is a Venezuelan company (it is not. It began as a Canadian company, but long ago was incorporated as a private U.S. company). Trump said the votes were counted on servers outside the U.S. (completely false). Trump said nearly 3 million Trump votes were deleted (completely debunked and false). Trump said votes were mysteriously switched electronically. That can't be done because a paper record comes with each vote. Trump argued that there is an algorithm that weighted Biden votes more than Trump votes (didn't -- and couldn't -- happen). Dominion also has no ties with the Pelosi family, the Feinstein family, the Clintons or George Soros.
Also, NC uses Dominion. Why didn't NC also flip?
Most importantly, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) stated that this was a secure election.
There was only one problem linked to Dominion and that was in Antrim County, MI, involving a few thousand votes. That was due to user error, and was quickly identified and corrected. No other such errors were found, even after the statewide canvass.
A great deal was made of TX rejecting Dominion, but it is used in 28 states and possesses U.S. federal government certification.
What I am denying is that there is sufficient evidence to overturn any of the elections in any of the states.
Rod, you are wise to concentrate on Dominion, because that is the weakest argument that Trumpers are currently making. I agree with you in that regard.
ReplyDeleteIf you haven't seen evidence of shockingly low mail-in ballot rejection rates -- totally out of character with an election in which most people are voting so for the first time -- then you must be deliberately avoiding it. I can see why. That suspicious practice in itself, if it were found to be illegitimate and invalid, would throw the election to Trump.
Dr. Waddy, again, there are charges about the rejection rates being "suspiciously low." Unless it can be proven that there was fraud, it doesn't matter what the rejection rate was "supposed to be." So, far, that has not happened.
ReplyDeleteAnd, in legal cases today:
MN dismisses election results challenge
MI denies Trump appeal
GA Kraken appeal dismissed
NV dismisses election contest
AZ dismisses election contest
WI denies election results challenge
Trump Team is 1-46 in court. Courts are the triers of fact.
Only 10 more days before the electors vote Joe Biden in officially as President and Kamala Harris as Vice-President.
I disagree (not surprisingly): it assuredly does matter when the rejection rate approaches zero, because it's the rejection of suspicious ballots that upholds the integrity of all the real ballots! Would you say, who cares if there's ballot stuffing, as long as MY ballot was counted? Heck no!
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy, please read what I had to say more carefully. A low rejection rate only matters if there was something done to artificially make it that low. Otherwise, a low rejection rate is just a low rejection rate.
ReplyDeleteSo far, there has been no evidence that will hold up in court that the low rejection rate occurred because of something illegal. There have been lots of charges, but no valid evidence.
Once again, charges are NOT evidence.
Well, is it not a fact that the law in Pennsylvania requires (matching) signatures on absentee ballots? And is it not also a fact that this year the authorities prohibited the rejection of absentee ballots based on signature matching? That, in turn, lowers the rejection rate... If I'm wrong, show me where.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy, the PA Election Code did not authorize or require county election boards to reject absentee or mail-in ballots based on matching signatures.
ReplyDeleteThat's why the PA Supreme Court ruled that way, 6-1, in October.