[johnforbes]

"A national expert in criminal forensics completed a report into the 2020 election in Michigan and has found further evidence of chronic, systemic, voter fraud especially among absentee ballots in that challenged election.

The firm is Specklin Forensics and they have wide national experience testifying in criminal trials. Through their..."

[Clownkicker]

Thoughts?

What? Still nothing in johnforbes' vacuous skull.

That's what I thought.

[johnforbes]

Mr Forbes favors utterly fair elections in which only qualified people vote once, and their vote is faithfully and properly recorded as cast.

After that, the winner has credibility, and the voters have their will expressed.

[Clownkicker]

You mean like with the Michigan election which was investigated by the Michigan Senate GOP and found to be credible, fair, and valid?

"LANSING, Mich. (AP) — State Senate Republicans who investigated Michigan’s 2020 presidential election for months concluded there was no widespread or systemic fraud and urged the state attorney general to consider probing people who have made baseless allegations about the results in Antrim County to raise money or publicity “for their own ends.”

The GOP-led state Senate Oversight Committee said in a 55-page report released Wednesday that citizens should be confident that the election’s outcome represents the “true results.” Democrat Joe Biden defeated then-President Donald Trump by about 155,000 votes, or 2.8 percentage points, in the battleground state."
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump ... 8555aac946

Okay, then why start a thread about a new lie, Dishonestjohn? If you refuse to believe the Democrats, and you refuse to believe the Republicans, just who will you believe besides dishonest conspiracy theorists without any evidence to support their claims?

Exactly what kind of ignorant simpleton douche bag are you anyway? The Trump supporter kind?

[johnforbes]

In the old days, with paper ballots which were retained, you could do a manual recount and actually determine who won by actually recapitulating the counting process.

That cannot be done with mail ballots where exterior evelopes were thrown away, or by counting machines...

Mr Forbes wants elections which are totally fair to ALL, completely free of error or partisan bias, and which fully represent the will of the people whether that ends up favoring Repubs, Dems, or whatever other party.

Fairness, honesty, and the ability to go back and check...

[Clownkicker]

Again, johnny, if you won't believe Democrats who tell you the election is free and fair, and at the same time you also won't believe Republicans who tell you an election is free and fair, then who will you believe?

You never answer that question. Why is that?

Elections can't wait two or three years to be certified, the way you are here insisting should be done. To have the public's trust, counting and certification must be done within a few days or weeks.

Mail-in ballots have no less ability to be recounted accurately than in-person ballots do. In-person ballots have had all personally identifying information removed from them when they are put into the ballot box just as removing the envelope from a mail-in ballot does the same. A mail in ballot still has a serial number on it that can be cross checked with mailing records, just as an in-person ballot has a number that can be cross checked with the records of who got what ballot.

[johnforbes]

It doesn't matter what the fabulous Forbes believes because he is not the arbiter of elections.

What is needed, of course, is a system fully and totally and completely fair to all.

Every voter should have to produce valid ID to prove entitlement to vote, and paper ballots should be used so that later it could be confirmed that the vote count was completely accurate and fair to all.

Every adult knows how to lose, but what people don't like is the feeling of being not treated fairly, and polls show big percentages of the population feel that way.

[Clownkicker]

No, what Trump supporters "feel" about an election is that no amount of facts from their own party's leaders "feels" true to them or even registers in their pea brains.

They believe Trump won SOLELY because Trump told them he won and for no other reason. You ask them for a reason and they just hem and haw and say something uninformed about Hillary deleting some emails.

No amount of election system overhaul will EVER make Trump supporters "feel" like they were treated fairly if they lose.

60% of Trump supporters (and you should know, being one yourself) will only "feel" you were treated fairly when enough corruption exists to illegally overturn an election that was actually fair (as attested to by every Republican in authority in every disputed state) so that their guy can be declared the winner even when he lost. But that's still not good enough for you. You want to pretend there was fraud because you simply choose to BELIEVE there was widespread fraud. Never mind that neither you nor any other Trump supporter could ever find any actual evidence of fraud beyond six votes here and ten votes there, usually evenly split between Republicans and Democrats--only cancelling each other out.

You should have learned by this point in your life that no one cares about your "feelings." They care whether you actually have any evidence to back up your nonsense. And you never do. What you SHOULD be "feeling" is "foolish."

When you finally have some evidence, give it to us. (By the way, nobody cares if you "feel" Biden took $10 million either. They care if you have any evidence to support your purely partisan claim.)

[johnforbes]

Mendel had a pea brain, or peas on the brain, not the estimable Forbes.

If Clowntoker has evidence to confirm the validity of every mail ballot separated from its outer envelope to permit a neutral person to go back and validate the whole thing, that would be wonderful.

And it would also be wonderful if each and every ballot were perfectly cast by a valid voter with photo ID, and one vote for every person, and all recorded with complete accuracy regardless what party it helped or hurt.

Complete fairness is what Mr Forbes wants, but that doesn't seem to be what Democrats desire...

[Clownkicker]

"Complete fairness is what Mr Forbes wants,..."-johnfibs

There is no place on earth, and no time in history, where "complete fairness" has ever existed. Nor will it ever exist. But most egregiously in politics. Grow up already. You're thinking in cartoons again.

All anyone can do is see that an election is as free and fair as practical and humanly possible. This is never achieved by shutting down polling places in minority areas or reducing the number of ballot drop boxes in Democrat-majority areas. It is never achieved by not allowing voters standing in line in the sun for hours due to the reduced number of polling places to be brought water. It is not achieved by hypocritically railing against such things as "ballot harvesting" and absentee ballots when it favors Democrats, but now pushing for both ballot harvesting and absentee ballots when it is now believed it will favor Republicans. (The Republican Party is actually doing this in several states today.)

There will always be people trying to cheat the system. You find them and prosecute them. You don't stop an election certification for them when you have no evidence to support such allegations. And then you must accept the results and move on. But since you don't believe your own party when they tell you a given election was fair, your stubborn refusal to live with the unavoidable (but generally honest) realities of running a democracy of 330 million people. But the one thing that is always true is that one may NEVER resort to violence to overturn certified election results the way Republicans did in 2020. That was unforgivable. (Both morally and legally.)

If there actually was widespread fraud in some election, then a remedy MUST be found in the courts and not through physical attacks on police and elected officials. And this time the top Court was run by Conservatives and Republicans, so you have no excuse for not availing yourselves of them and accepting their decisions. The two times the Court weighed in on this election case, it was to reject Trump's allegations. That's as "fair" as anything in politics will get. Live with it and start your next election campaign to 'set right' your perceived grievances in the legislatures of your state.

But what's worst in your silly comment about your wanting "fairness" is that you are here staunchly and hypocritically supporting unfairness in nearly every political position you hold. You are against ALL attempts to remedy the unfairnesses of slavery, Jim Crow, bank red lining, systemic racism in our justice system, damage from past systemic unfairness in college admissions, or the Republican anti-minority gerrymandering of voting districts and the writing of restrictive and needlessly oppressive voting laws going on today in a number of Republican-run states. There is at least one state where Republicans make up around 45% of the population but still control around 70% of the legislature. And they have rigged their state system so that it will stay that way into the future. How "fair" is that, johnny? You don't care about fairness or you would have started threads on at least one of these topics instead of the 60%% of your threads that are merely partisan trolling.

As it turns out, the only unfairness that actually seems to bother you at all is some perceived unfairness that you believe cuts into your longstanding benefits of white privilege resulting from historical racism.

[johnforbes]

Many examples:

"On October 8, 2020 a person dropped off between 8,000-10,000 completed voter registration applications in Muskegon, Michigan. City Clerk Ann Meisch obviously noticed.

Per a review of the voter applications, it was uncovered that:

numerous forms appeared to have been completed by the same writer
addresses on multiple forms were invalid or non-existent
phone numbers were erroneous
signatures didn’t match"

[Clownkicker]

johnny, ONE example is not "Many examples"

If you had bothered to look any further than your daily propaganda screed, you would have found this:

"Police investigating after Muskegon clerk finds irregularities in voter registration applications
[Muskegon, MI City Clerk Ann] Meisch said no ballots were issued to any application with suspected voter registration irregularities."

"While most of the applications were valid, Meisch said several irregularities were recognized in a portion of them, including applications with wrong birthdays, addresses, driver’s license numbers and signatures that did not match their driver’s license.
https://www.wzzm13.com/article/news/pol ... 96b7af9a9e

So your single example of supposed wide spread election fraud is not an example of any election fraud at all because no ballots were sent out to questionable applications. And that's how the system is supposed to work and how it DOES work for the most part. That's why you must accept the conclusions of your state authorities who actually run your elections. They mostly do an amazing job at executing fair elections under difficult conditions, as your own example attests.

And it was not 8,000-10,000 ballot applications. It was an estimated 6,000. Though this number still raises red flags despite the fact that most of the applications turned out to be valid, the huge difference in your number and the actual number speaks to the credibility of your source. And this sort of inaccuracy always applies to all your unattributed partisan sources.

So let's see some more examples of your cartoonish thinking about of your "Many examples" that simply don't hold up under even cursory scrutiny, johnny.

[johnforbes]

One example is one.

A group of "many examples" consists of one example, then another, another, and so on.

[Clownkicker]

"A group of "many examples" consists of one example, then another, another, and so on."-Dimwitjohnny

Yes, so why can't you come up with any more examples after your one example proved not to be an example of widespread election fraud? It didn't affect the election at all.

So far you haven't come up with a single valid example of election fraud, just as Trump hasn't been able to do it.

Try again, dummy.

[johnforbes]

If a flying arrow must traverse an infinite quantity of points to reach its target, and if that which is in locomotion is always in a "now" point, then the flying arrow may be considered motionless according to the phyics of Aristotle.

If the arrow is moving, it is neither in the place it is, nor is it in the place it is not, if you read Diogenes on the famous philosophers.

Time is composed of many "nows" and in any given instant occupies a space. Thus, the entire period of its motion contains only instants as Zeno instructs.

Hopefully, this will clarify the muddy thought processes of Clowntroller.

[Clownkicker]

That's a lot of words just to say you have no other examples of election fraud to offer, dummy.

[johnforbes]

"....every single Democrat president since 1977 has questioned the legitimacy of U.S. elections, according to the Republican National Committee. In both 2013 and 2016, Biden claimed that Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election. In May 2019, Biden said he “absolutely agrees” that Trump was an “illegitimate president.” Biden cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 2022 midterms this year.

In 2006, then-DNC Chairman Howard Dean stated that he was “not confident that the [2004] election in Ohio was fairly decided.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said it is “appropriate” to have a debate concerning the 2004 election and claimed that there were “legitimate concerns” regarding the “integrity” of U.S. elections. Then-Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) cast doubt on the security of electronic voting machines in the 2004 election, saying he was “worried” that some machines do not have a paper trail.

Democrats also cast doubt on the 2016 election. Seven House Democrats tried to object to the 2016 election electoral votes. After President Trump’s victory in 2016, 67 Democrats boycotted his inauguration, with some claiming Trump’s victory was not legitimate.

In September 2017, Hillary Clinton said she would not “rule out” questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 election. In October 2020, she added that the 2016 presidential election was not conducted legitimately, saying, “We still don’t really know what happened.”

In addition, Democrats supported Stacey Abrams in her stolen election claims. Hillary Clinton said Stacey Abrams “would have won” Georgia’s gubernatorial race “if she had a fair election” and that Stacey Abrams “should be governor” but was “deprived of the votes [she] otherwise would have gotten.”

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) said, “I think that Stacey Abrams’s election is being stolen from her.” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) contended that “if Stacey Abrams doesn’t win in Georgia, they stole it.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said, “the evidence seems to suggest” the race was stolen from Stacey Abrams.

“We won,” Abrams falsely claimed about the 2018 election. “I didn’t lose; we got the votes,” and “we were robbed of an election.” She also called it a “stolen election” multiple times and argued, “It was not a free and fair election.”

[Clownkicker]

^^^^^^^^ Uh oh, johnny's resorting to spamming the board again with pointless partisan silliness that has nothing to do with the thread topics he posts on.

[johnforbes]

Jimmy Carter, Howard Dean, Hillary, Stacey Abrams, should they be indicted for election denial and for calling elections unfair when they had no evidence to support their assertions?

Mr Forbes would say "no" because they had First Amendment rights, but then so do Repubs.

[Clownkicker]

"Jimmy Carter, Howard Dean, Hillary, Stacey Abrams, should they be indicted for election denial and for calling elections unfair when they had no evidence to support their assertions?"-johnfoibles

Of course nobody has ever, in the history of the U.S., been indicted for calling elections "unfair". Trump certainly hasn't been. Read his indictments to learn what Trump was actually indicted for, dimwit. You don't even need to be a real lawyer to do that, so you should do fine. You will see that not a single one of the 91 felony charges against Trump is for "election denial." It is partisanly dishonest to continue to pretend they are.

Why are you so desperately trying to divert from the issue of Trump getting indicted for actual crimes, johnny? Who do you think you are fooling?

[johnforbes]

In Dec 2016, 5 million Democrats signed a Change.org petition urging electors to ignore the votes and make Hillary president.

When will these 5 million be indicted for election denial and RICO charges?

[Clownkicker]

NEVER, dimwit. Signing a petition, no matter how stupid it may be, is not a crime, dimwit. There is no law against it.

Why are you so desperate to distract from the very real statutory crimes Trump has been charged with?

Your impotent partisan flailing about is just humiliating, johnny. It just makes you look like a buffoon.

[johnforbes]

But, according to Fani, those 5 million who disbelieved the 2016 election and signed a petition urging electors to NOT cast votes for the legal winner (Trump) were engaged in a criminal conspiracy, eh?

[Clownkicker]

johnny, why are you still desperately trying to distract from your baffling unwillingness to accept the rulings of your own party leaders about the Michigan election which didn't have any significant problems?

Just admit you were simply carrying water for your partisan handlers and we can put this thread to rest.

[Clownkicker]

We now have the verdict of Republican Presidential candidates about whether Trump won the 2020 election--he didn't. A bunch more Republicans told us so on national TV.

Mike Pence said he did the right thing in not delaying the count of the certified Electoral College votes sent to Congress.

Governor DeSantis says Pence did the right thing in not delaying the count of the certified Electoral College votes sent to Congress.

Senator Tim Scott said Pence "absolutely" did the right thing in not delaying the count of the certified Electoral College votes sent to Congress.

Nikki Haley agreed that Pence did the right thing in not delaying the count of the certified Electoral College votes sent to Congress.

Chris Christie agreed that Pence did the right thing in not delaying the count of the certified Electoral College votes sent to Congress.

johnforbes has been told that it was all correctly done according to the Constitution. If he can't believe these guys, who WILL he believe? Is johnforbes even of sound mind, or is he just another partisan loon?

So now that johnforbes has been told by his party's top contenders for President that Trump legitimately lost the election, let's see if he will believe them where he still refuses to believe Republican AG Barr, every Republican Governor in disputed states, every Republican Sec. of State in the disputed states, every Trump White House advisor, every authority in the DOJ, and Trump's own White House counsel who all told him he had lost the election.

Why johnforbes insists on calling all these Right Wing people at the pinnacle of a Right Wing Republican Administration RINOs and refuses to accept them as authorities on the election is baffling. But now he must certainly agree that Trump legitimately lost the election, right? He has been told by the best of the best in the Republican Party who all tell him Trump legitimately lost.

So NOW let's hear johnny's opinion on who won the election. He refuses to believe Democrat officials who tell him there was no widespread election fraud to invalidate the certified Electoral College votes sent to Congress, but will he finally believe his own Republican Party Presidential candidates who tell him Pence correctly counted valid Electoral College votes? Or does johnforbes believe the lot of them are simply more Republican liars?

[johnforbes]

Although now apparently info emerges that many duplicate ballots were counted in Fulton County, the honorable Mr. Forbes continues to note that he himself has no idea who had more legit ballots in any given jurisdiction.

Also, Clowntroller seems a tad hostile, but Mr Forbes has always complimented Clown on being just as physically fit as Chris Christie.

[Clownkicker]

"...the honorable Mr. Forbes continues to note that he himself has no idea who had more legit ballots in any given jurisdiction."-johnflubs

EXACTLY, johnny, which is why you must accept the decisions of the election officials who ran the elections. Every one of them has told you that Biden won. The Democrats have told you Biden won. The Republicans have told you Biden won. Every White House advisor of Trump told him Biden had won. They all agree that Pence did the right thing in counting the certified Electoral College votes sent to Congress. Congress certified that Biden won.

So it's over, johnny. It was over more than two years ago. Now your admittedly-ignorant insistence on humoring Trump's anti-American bullshit is tearing the country apart, and you and dishonest partisan clowns like you are responsible for that.

Why is it so hard for you to simply say Biden won legitimately? Why won't you take the word of all the Republicans authorities who told you so? Accepting certified election results defines our democracy, yet you persist in intentionally shitting on it.

Why do you openly hate America this way, johnny?

[johnforbes]

The problem is that Democrats denied elections in 2000, in 2004, in 2016, and in 2018.

Heck, Al Gore denied the 2000 election all the way to the US Supreme Court, so obviously he should be indicted along with all his lawyers on RICO charges, eh?

[Clownkicker]

You don't indict someone for using the courts and abiding by their decisions, dimwit.

They did what Trump refuses to do, which is abide by the decisions of the courts. Trump lost 61 times in the courts. Instead, he tried to do an end run with violence and death threats at the Capitol, and illegal strong-arm RICO tactics over the phone to achieve what he couldn't achieve through legal means.

Why does johnforbes hate our country so much that he's here wanting to prosecute those who peacefully avail themselves of it?

[johnforbes]

But Joe is doing precisely that.

After being told by the Supreme Court that he had to go to Congress with a new revenue bill proposal if he wanted to forgive student loans, Joe instantly pivoted to another spin on the same mistake.

Their plan is to rewrite rules implementing the Higher Educ Act and forgive loans.

But that violates the Admin Procedure Act, which indicates that rules are to implement -- not rewrite -- statutes.

[Clownkicker]

Once again, upon losing his alleged point, johnforbes pivots to a diversion that has nothing to do with the thread topic.

Of course, Biden did abide by the court's decision. He is no longer forgiving loans under his previous justification because the court told him he couldn't.

[johnforbes]

[Clownkicker]

Geezus, johnny, so your diversion from the topic this time is that the Michigan AG is a sports fan?

Criminy. Grow up.

Admittedly, like you, I too am against absurd public spectacles such as professional sports events because of the many negative effects they have on society in general and where half the crowd makes fools of themselves in public. But of course the AG does not run elections in Michigan and had nothing to do with the Republican Senate investigation into the election which found nothing amiss.

Really, johnny, you should try to at least discuss the topic of a thread instead of wandering off into a sports wasteland where everyone is stupid. Your pointless partisan diversions only embarrass yourself and make you look as stupid as those you try to ridicule.

[johnforbes]

Hey, cut her some slack.

Other than binge drinking, she may be protected from criticism by lesbianic proclivities.

And, of course, Democrats are above the law.

[Clownkicker]

YOU cut her some slack, dimwit.

You're the one bringing her into an unrelated discussion about the Michigan election which was found to be fair and square by the state's own Senate Republicans and which she had nothing to do with.

In other words, YOU dragged her into this thing needlessly just to use her as a desperate diversion from your abject humiliation for holding an ignorant and dishonest position in a political discussion. And all because you refuse to take the word of your own party. All because you refuse to believe ANYONE other than Trump himself.

What makes someone like you think so little of themselves that they will join a cult and unquestioningly turn their minds over to a charismatic leader, johnny? Please enlighten us about your gullibility. You claim 'enlightenment' is what you do here, so do it. Tell us why you are such a dishonest partisan weasel.

[johnforbes]

Please, nobody found that at all.

Sure, Mr Forbes is as fond of drunken lesbians as anyone.

In fact, one might say you can't lick a good lesbian thread.

But Forbes still wants complete, total fairness for all -- photo ID to vote, one man should have one vote (no more, no less), total fairness.

Baker v Carr (1962) et alia...

[Clownkicker]

"Mr Forbes wants elections which are totally fair to ALL, completely free of error or partisan bias, and which fully represent the will of the people whether that ends up favoring Repubs, Dems, or whatever other party."-johnfibs

And yet johnforbes has never started a thread about the Republican gerrymandering in Wisconsin and Alabama. These are states where a minority of voters maintain a supermajority or near supermajority in their legislatures. Alabama is so bad that after Republicans defying a court ruling to redraw district maps in a more fair way, now an independent group must redraw the map. The legislature has shown their partisanship outweighs any concept of "fairness" that johnforbes pretends matters to him.

Despite this, johnforbes keeps starting these silly threads about cases that are repeatedly shown to be fair by Republican election officials and Republican election investigators.

Nor will johnforbes start a thread about Republicans in Wisconsin possibly impeaching a Supreme Court Justice before she even sits to hear a single case. This illustrates the desperation of Republicans to avoid any semblance of "fairness" in elections (or in anything else, for that matter) just so they can maintain an unfair electoral system that doesn't bother johnforbes in the least.

Hypocrisy, thy name in johnforbes.

[johnforbes]

As we finish yet another thoughtful thread, let us look back in wonder at all we have learned:

1) Every single Democrat president since 1977 has questioned the legitimacy of U.S. elections

2) In 2006, then-DNC Chairman Howard Dean stated that he was “not confident that the [2004] election in Ohio was fairly decided.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said it is “appropriate” to have a debate concerning the 2004 election and claimed that there were “legitimate concerns” regarding the “integrity” of U.S. elections. Then-Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) cast doubt on the security of electronic voting machines in the 2004 election, saying he was “worried” that some machines do not have a paper trail.

3) Democrats also cast doubt on the 2016 election. Seven House Democrats tried to object to the 2016 election electoral votes. After President Trump’s victory in 2016, 67 Democrats boycotted his inauguration, with some claiming Trump’s victory was not legitimate. In September 2017, Hillary Clinton said she would not “rule out” questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 election. In October 2020, she added that the 2016 presidential election was not conducted legitimately, saying, “We still don’t really know what happened.”

[Clownkicker]

As we finish yet another thoughtful thread, let us look back in wonder at all we have learned:

There were in fact no significant problems re the Michigan election (remember what this thread is actually about and the topic johnforbes never bothered to address?) according to an investigation by the Michigan Senate Republicans themselves, and they told johnforbes that there was no election fraud and that Biden won. But johnforbes still hasn't learned that fact, according to his list of things he says he learned from this thread.

The only things johnforbes says he learned on this thread have nothing at all to do with the thread topic he himself started. Nowhere does he say he learned anything from the Michigan Senate Republicans who investigated the election and then told him Biden won Michigan. johnforbes simply chooses not to believe anything Republican authorities tell him if it doesn't jibe with his distorted partisan world view.

Apparently, the only things johnforbes learned were a bunch of irrelevant diversions he desperately resorted to in order to distract readers from the humiliation he suffered on his own thread once again.

[johnforbes]

Clown continues to miss salient points.

There is a difference between what a person chooses to do and what he could do constitutionally.

Now a given VP has to do as that VP wishes to do under the circumstances.

All the august Forbes has pointed out was that, under the Electoral Count Act, arguably Pence could constitutionally have remanded disputed electors to state legislatures for resolution pursuant to the Constitutions.

If that is wrong, why -- pray tell -- did Democrats rewrite that Act and slip it into the Dec 2022 Omnibus bill?

You don't rewrite an Act to say something you want it to say unless it didn't say what you wanted before, do you?

These sorts of discussions are what classes in Constitutional Law are about.

These sorts of issues are the raison d'etre for the US Supreme Court.

If you don't need a Supreme Court to ponder them, could they be resolved by patrons at the local barroom?

[Clownkicker]

"All the august Forbes has pointed out was that, under the Electoral Count Act, arguably Pence could constitutionally have remanded disputed electors to state legislatures for resolution pursuant to the Constitutions."-johnfibs

Again, THERE WERE NO DISPUTED ELECTORS. You made it up.

No election authority in any state disputed the certified slates of electors they sent to D.C..

Just because some loser clown commits crimes to fabricate fraudulent slates of electors does not mean that the certified electors were disputed in any legal sense. Trump making up fake electors is about as legal as johnforbes making up a bunch of fake electors. They mean nothing. He doesn't have the power to do so.

Now, once again, why can't you discuss your own topic which is the Michigan election. The Senate GOP had no problem with it, so why do you pretend someone else does? The Wisconsin Secretary of State doesn't. The Wisconsin governor doesn't. They are the only people in Wisconsin who can "dispute" a slate of electors.

[johnforbes]

State legislatures have authority, per the Constitution, over matters such as the date, time, and manner of elections.

There were disputed electors in 1960 and JFK was not charged with anything (nor should he have been) for exploring legitimate means of trying to win an election he surely believed he had won.

But in 1960, and for decades after, there were arguments about West Virginia and Illinois and whether JFK had really won that election.

Or look at another Democrat, LBJ, and the controversial election of 1948 where even today there are questions and arguments.

When Mr Forbes writes up his own Wikipedia page, he may award himself a few Nobel Prizes, but as of yet he has none. That aside, even given its leftist tone and unreliability, look at the Wikipedia take:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Unit ... n_in_Texas

[Clownkicker]

Yada, yada, yada, johnny. No one cares about your irrelevant historical diversions from the unchallenged facts of the 2020 election.

Again, in 2020 THERE WERE NO DISPUTED ELECTORS. You made it up.

There were no legislatures claiming that the existing laws written by those legislatures were not followed. This is because they WERE followed and the elections were certified according to those laws.

Just because some partisan clowns such as yourself made up completely unsupported claims of election fraud does not mean that certified elections can be ignored for years. For our system to work, everyone must agree to abide by the certified results of those elections.

Given your previous admission that you yourself have no idea who got more votes in any given election, you must then abide by the decisions of state authorities, no matter how big a partisan douche bag you are. You can't continue to do this disservice to your country by refusing to accept certified election results that, to this day, have not been disputed by any evidence whatsoever of widespread fraud in any of the partisanly 'disputed' areas.

Please try to address the topic of this thread which you started. The Michigan election was investigated by their Senate Republicans and they found no fraud to invalidate the certified election results. Don't you think they know more about it than you do? Or are you going to continue to do the desperate diversion thing to pretend you have some relevant evidence of election fraud in Michigan which even the Michigan Senate Republicans don't have?

[johnforbes]

Yes, there were alternate slates, just as in 1960 and in other elections where people wanted to preserve their rights to potentially have disputes resolved by state legislatures.

State legislatures, under the US Constitution, control the date, time, and maner of elections.

Bear in mind, what Mr Forbes is talking about is the peaceful, legal, constitutional resolution of such matters.

What Clowntoker has in mind are the riots, the looting, the burning, which characterized 2020 with BLM and Antifa wreaking havoc all across the nation, with its amber waves of grain and its Amber Heards.

[Clownkicker]

Why does johnforbes start these threads and then refuse to discuss the topics of his own thread?

Why is it he can't stop diverting from his own topic? Could it be that he knows his partisan and phony thread makes him look like an imbecile?

Probably. Let's ask the Magic 8 Ball, shall we?

And, unsurprisingly, the answer is "It is decidedly so"

[johnforbes]

That is a mystery for the ages, eh?

Who knows what lurks in the minds of men?

Only The Shadow knows...