Betfair odds on Trump becoming president: 35/1 on Sat, 27/1 on Mon, 13/1 Weds, 9/1 today.
-8 ( +1 / -9 )
Biden has no issue of investigation of the election because it was clean.
Are you saying the courts are not clean? Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.
-3 ( +3 / -6 )
Trump lost. Past tense.
Interesting. So you think it's completely impossible for him to win. Odds on Betfair have dropped to 10/1,
-7 ( +2 / -9 )
As opposed to your being half-wrong?
So when Trump wins, you don't think people who hate him won't riot?
-8 ( +1 / -9 )
That's a no then. Seems you are keeping up the habit of being wrong.
-8 ( +2 / -10 )
Richard Hopkins signed a sworn Affidavit. Did someone get to him, offer him money?
So has he recanted?
-9 ( +2 / -11 )
the House Oversight Committee said from its official Twitter account. “USPS IG investigators informed Committee staff today that they interviewed Hopkins on Friday, but that Hopkins RECANTED HIS ALLEGATIONS yesterday and did not explain why he signed a false affidavit.”
Which was posted 5 hours ago.
The whistleblower has stated within the last hour that he has not recanted.
-5 ( +4 / -9 )
So is this postal worker being charged with anything. Surely that would keep the lions from coming out of the woodwork.
He isn't at the moment. The article Zichi posted a link to is from yesterday. The whistleblower has announced within the last hour that he hasn't recanted his statement.
-6 ( +2 / -8 )
Remember, some are still convinced there are alien reptiles involved. Trump and the global alt right prey on America's 70,000,000 or so intellectually vulnerable.
Almost 72,000,000 (currently 71,896,869)
-5 ( +3 / -8 )
The USPS whistleblower that claimed he witnessed fraud has apparently recanted his statement, according the the Washington Post.
The whistleblower has revealed his identity and has made a video within the last hour stating that he has not recanted his statement and wishes the Washinton Post to take down their article.
-6 ( +4 / -10 )
Betfair odds on Trump becoming president dropped from 27/1 to 13/1 over the last couple of days. It's now 11/1. Whoever put money down a couple of days ago will be laughing soon.
-10 ( +2 / -12 )
Years were dedicated to the Russiagate case, which had no evidence. It's not unreasonable to ask for a couple of weeks to ascertain if fraud took place in this election.
-8 ( +4 / -12 )
The Tweet you linked to doesn't provide anything to support the claim, its just a quote of the press secretary asking for patience.
So you didn't watch it until the end. They list what affidavits they have already.
-12 ( +3 / -15 )
You said it, evidence! We haven't seen any EVIDENCE! Only Trumps accusations.
So let them present the evidence to the courts. If they can't do that within the next couple of weeks, their claims will be thrown out.
-6 ( +5 / -11 )
You should watch the compilation of Trump/Fox and others in 2016, crying about delayed processes, drawn-out court cases, Dems pushing "fraud" because their candidate didn't win, etc. Quite funny.
But doesn't that make it hypocritical, though? They were allowed to submit their cases and have them dealt with. Why shouldn't it be the same now?
-8 ( +6 / -14 )
When they’re baseless with nothing to support them it’s entirely a waste of time.
That's not an argument. Even if they are baseless, they need to be thrown out by the appropriate authorities.
They're also not looking baseless at the moment:
-7 ( +5 / -12 )
The fact that the courts - and given the importance of the subject matter the country and world as well - are being forced to deal with baseless claims.
The fact that this is an election where both candidates have the received more votes than any other candidate in US history, and the fact that there is only a difference of a 10-40 thousands votes in many swings states which could change the outcome of this election, is why it is not a waste of time.
-14 ( +6 / -20 )
It’s a waste of the courts time to hear cases based on conspiracy theories without any evidence.
It's never a waste of the court's time to deal with serious accusations. Again, if they are baseless, they can be dismissed within days, and that will add the integrity of the result.
-14 ( +7 / -21 )
So if I claim that there were 20 million votes for Biden secretly stolen by trump supporters everyone should wait for my baseless and evidence-less claims to be dismissed?
It's up to the courts to decide whether the claims are baseless or not. I don't understand why you aren't wanting the appropriate authorities deal with these claims. If they are baseless, they will be thrown out. What's the problem?
-14 ( +6 / -20 )
You’re right. But giving any credence to a bunch of claims made with no evidence is insanity.
So wait a couple of weeks for the claims to be dismissed. Wanting to rush, skip or ignore the process isn't democratic.
-11 ( +7 / -18 )
In order to maintain a democracy, all allegations of fraud which are backed up with evidence must be dealt with. To try and ignore them is undemocratic.
-6 ( +14 / -20 )
Are there comments that state they are okay with Trump announcing that he had won? Not comments that can be construed, alluded to and so on.
-15 ( +1 / -16 )
I didn't say they were expressly praising his announcement per se. But any fair reading of their comments indicates that:
A) They didn't object to him calling it in his own favor at a time that was obviously massively premature;
B) They were more than willing to parrot its substance; the article is littered with comments made under the assumption Trump had won the election and all that was left to Biden/dems was a bunch of pathetic delaying tactics to put off the inevitable defeat.
You are A) moving the goalposts B) using a your own opinion to decide what the meaning behind other people's comments are.
-15 ( +1 / -16 )
Lets look at the responses to this JT article last week which covered that, titled "Trump claims victory despite uncounted votes: Biden urges caution"
I'm not seeing any comments praising Trump for announcing that he won. I just see comments saying "Trump will win" or "He has won".
It's best not to try an make things up.
-13 ( +1 / -14 )
You had no problem whatsoever with Trump declaring himself the winner of the election before half the votes had even been counted.
Could you please provide some evidence of this.
-13 ( +1 / -14 )
The ballots haven't been finished being counted and people are already trying to act as if the election was months ago. Trump is well within his right to not concede until all contested states have their recounts and the fraud cases have been dismissed/dealt with.
All of this will be accomplished by December so people only have to wait a couple of weeks.
-14 ( +1 / -15 )
So he doesn't say "anti-fraud organization" or "fraud prevention organization", but just says "voter fraud organization". Seems like a Freudian slip to me.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
nor did Biden say that!
So Biden doesn't say "We have put together I think, the most extensive, inclusive, voter fraud organization in the history of American politics" in his speech below, which was made a week before the election?
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
Dial back to the Nov3 election in 2016. One week after the Election Day president elect Trump was in the White House meeting with Obama. Even before the state governors had sent the election results to the US Archive and before the EC announced the results. No screams or cries from Clinton on voter fraud.
Yes, but Trump didn't say, "We have put together the most comprehenive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics", a week before an election which had more dodgy stuff than a jammy dodger.
-6 ( +1 / -7 )
It's disconcnerting that some people believe that fireworks being set off in London and church bells ringning in Paris were to celebrate Biden winning the presidency. The fireworks were for Bonfire Night, where many people have fireworks on the preceding and following weekends. The church bells in Paris were being rung for the victims of the terrorist attack the week before.
-9 ( +1 / -10 )