Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

So SECONDRATE, have you decided whether the popular vote should decide the Presidency?

Have you figured out the contradiction in your own POV, yet?

---

Lincoln was elected President with less than 40% of the popular vote. In that election, the losers lost because they split their votes between three competing candidates. Before Lincoln was inaugurated, the losers planned to assassinate him, but he evaded the losers. The losers then coalesced around Jefferson Davis as their new President. The Army calling Davis its president killed about a million Americans in retaliation against the election of Lincoln. That Army was defeated by Lincoln's Army. Despite that, the spiteful losers in the election of 1860 had one more killing to go: Abraham Lincoln. That's your history lesson for today, Signym.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln#Secession_and_inaugurati
on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_United_States_presidential_election

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
THANK YOU FOR COMPLETELY EVADING MY QUESTION.

I asked you whether YOU THINK the popular vote should rule in deciding who becomes President, a point you were so passionate about when arguing against the Electoral College.

Since Lincoln did not get the popular vote, are you saying he shouldn't have become President?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

So SECOND, as I read your "history" Lincoln actual won the popular vote because no one got more votes than he did. And you've shown no discrepancy between the popular vote (of the entire US) and the electoral college (of the entire US) and the selection for the presidency (of the entire US).

Anything else to add?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

They must REALLY be paying you by the volume of your posts, and not by the quality of their content.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:


They must REALLY be paying you by the volume of your posts, and not by the quality of their content.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

So SECONDRATE, have you decided whether the popular vote should decide the Presidency?

Have you figured out the contradiction in your own POV, yet?

---

Lincoln was elected President with less than 40% of the popular vote. In that election, the losers lost because they split their votes between three competing candidates. Before Lincoln was inaugurated, the losers planned to assassinate him, but he evaded the losers. The losers then coalesced around Jefferson Davis as their new President. The Army calling Davis its president killed about a million Americans in retaliation against the election of Lincoln. That Army was defeated by Lincoln's Army. Despite that, the spiteful losers in the election of 1860 had one more killing to go: Abraham Lincoln. That's your history lesson for today, Signym.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln#Secession_and_inaugurati
on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_United_States_presidential_election

---

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETELY EVADING MY QUESTION.

I asked you whether YOU THINK the popular vote should rule in deciding who becomes President, a point you were so passionate about when arguing against the Electoral College.

Since Lincoln did not get the popular vote, are you saying he shouldn't have become President?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Having linked, and read, the Constitution on the nature of USA elections, and understanding that many of the SCOTUS are Constitutionalists, the SCOTUS could have hardly decided any different. The Constitution provides for each state to decide HOW they want to conduct each election. They could have voters throw darts at a dartboard, as far as I can tell.

There is no commitment in the Constitution that REQUIRES one person, one vote, and no commitment in the Constitution that requires non-fraudulent elections. That is up to the state legislatures and governors.

OTOH, that also free the states' electors from the vote, popular, honest, or otherwise, as long as its done according to the rules of the each state's legislature.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, just to be clear that we are in agreement on this, SECOND, just because the SCOTUS decided not to intervene in the election DOES NOT MEAN that the election was fair.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, just to be clear that we are in agreement on this, SECOND, just because the SCOTUS decided not to intervene in the election DOES NOT MEAN that the election was fair.

---

Whatever, Russian troll. You are, and always have been full of shit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

---

I love it when REAVERBOT is reduced to calling me a Russian troll. The lower REAVERBOT sinks, the better I must be doing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Thanks for your posts, Signy. They are always a happy island of facts and civility in this cesspool where non-stop trolling, libel, and propaganda are the norm. And when Biden* fails to keep his promises - or even promote them - I'll be happy to laugh at his skinny saggy ass parading all over town in his New Clothes™.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Fake election was the coup.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Fake election was the coup.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
I was amused by this tweet that is going into history books for The Biggest Lie Of Trump's Life. He can be proud of himself for proving that there are no limits to what some will believe:

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

Swing States that have found massive VOTER FRAUD, which is all of them, CANNOT LEGALLY CERTIFY these votes as complete & correct without committing a severely punishable crime. Everybody knows that dead people, below age people, illegal immigrants, fake signatures, prisoners, and many others voted illegally. Also, machine “glitches” (another word for FRAUD), ballot harvesting, non-resident voters, fake ballots, “stuffing the ballot box”, votes for pay, roughed up Republican Poll Watchers, and sometimes even more votes than people voting, took place in Detroit, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, and elsewhere. In all Swing State cases, there are far more votes than are necessary to win the State, and the Election itself. Therefore, VOTES CANNOT BE CERTIFIED. THIS ELECTION IS UNDER PROTEST!

4:49 PM · Dec 13, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1338254785666043908

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Remember when Trump said that Trump Tower was "wiretapped",and it was derided as "fake news"?Well, except for the archaic term that he used, he was essentally correct.

Remember when Hunter Biden's laptop was derided as "Russian disinformation", and now we find out that EVEN THEN, Biden was the subject of FOUR investigations?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Remember when the media blared that "Russia" had "stolen" the DNC emails, even tho Crowdstrike (the private entity that had exmained their servers) secretly testified to the GOP=controlled Senate months and months before it became a story) that they had NO SUCH EVIDENCE?

The news, the DC swamp, the FIB... they claim that truth is a lies, and lies are truth. Just, yanno, invert what they say and you'll have a clearer picture.

Everything that Trump tweeted is true. The only thing that will set the next election right is if Legislatures and Governors and Secretaries of State REQUIRE a vote procedure that is secure and auditable. We've had at least three examples of stolen elections since 2000 (GWB, GWB, and Biden) but the establishment wings of both parties don't mind: they reach secret deals about who is "supposed" to win which election.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
PEOPLE need to take over government, again. We need a populist uprising (and no, I don't mean with guns.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Everything that Trump tweeted is true. The only thing that will set the next election right is if Legislatures and Governors and Secretaries of State REQUIRE a vote procedure that is secure and auditable. We've had at least three examples of stolen elections since 2000 (GWB, GWB, and Biden) but the establishment wings of both parties don't mind: they reach secret deals about who is "supposed" to win which election.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

I see nobody has addressed the CONTENT of Signy's post.

As usual.

Just more libel, trolling, lies, and misdirection from the usual suspects. (TUS)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:


** MY ** question ** STILL ** is - why are no politicos of either party calling for statistical evaluation of this election?

Or for reform after the Mitofsky report? Yanno CalTech/ MIT has a lot of things they said needed to be done. Not that anybody in government followed up ...

Or after the Bush/ Gore election and the hanging chad fiasco with the suspicious electronic voting machine numbers.

So, let me post, again, what I've been posting all along ...



And if democrats don't do any different, how are they any better?

I'm still waiting for them to prove that they are different - and better. I've been waiting for over a decade.

---

Quote:

---

The House on Friday passed a massive voting rights, campaign-finance and ethics reform package

---