Who wants Trump to concede?

[catfish1957]

Yes,  he asked to see actual evidence.    I guess that's turning to the dark side around here

@Jazzhead

There has been a mountain of evidence presented that has been squelched by Big Tech/MSM.  Which BTW, you conveniently didn't open or comment on the Project Vertias files I provided you.    Imagine that..... 

Problem is quantifying a flood from a million dripping faucets.  Logistics are against Trump.

And dark side?  Giving cover to Biden  is about as disgusting as it gets.  Congrats.

[skeeter]

I don't think Trump is destroying the GOP.  His formula for attracting working folks and minorities to a message of economic growth and Americanism has reinvigorated the party.    But the man himself is a small-minded megalomamiac.  IMO, of course.

Imagine all of those wonderful policies you say you love sprung from such a small mind.

[skeeter]

@Jazzhead

There has been a mountain of evidence presented that has been squelched by Big Tech/MSM.  Which BTW, you conveniently didn't open or comment on the Project Vertias files I provided you.    Imagine that..... 

Problem is quantifying a flood from a million dripping faucets.  Logistics are against Trump.

And dark side?  Giving cover to Biden  is about as disgusting as it gets.  Congrats.

Supposedly 90-100% of the evidence presented in successfully prosecuted white collar crime is circumstantial. Anyone blowing off a mountain of circumstantial evidence off while asking for 'actual evidence' already has their mind made up.

[andy58-in-nh]

Just got a text that Tucker Carlson flipped to the dark side.  Fox execs get to him?

Not looking good.

Tucker is one of the last honest, and honorable media commentators.

He is just looking for evidence and information with which to validate others' claims. 

So far, the Trump team has given us very little to support their very serious allegations. What they have supplied so far does raise serious questions about the propriety of vote-counting procedures in a couple of key electoral precincts. But that is a far cry from what has been headlined and promised.

Now, it may well be that Trump's attorneys are waiting to prove their case in court, but given the enormous and unprecedented gravity of the charges they are making - the theft of a national election in the world's largest and greatest republican democracy - they had better give us more than what they have offered so far.

Otherwise, people will assume they are not being leveled with.

[Cyber Liberty]

I don't think Trump is destroying the GOP.  His formula for attracting working folks and minorities to a message of economic growth and Americanism has reinvigorated the party.    But the man himself is a small-minded megalomamiac.  IMO, of course.

You mean, "In My Ignorant Opinion."

[Cyber Liberty]

Otherwise, people will assume they are not being leveled with.

People who hate him (see posts above) have been claiming that for years.

[skeeter]

Tucker is one of the last honest, and honorable media commentators.

He is just looking for evidence and information with which to validate others' claims. 

So far, the Trump team has given us very little to support their very serious allegations. What they have supplied so far does raise serious questions about the propriety of vote-counting procedures in a couple of key electoral precincts. But that is a far cry from what has been headlined and promised.

Now, it may well be that Trump's attorneys are waiting to prove their case in court, but given the enormous and unprecedented gravity of the charges they are making - the theft of a national election in the world's largest and greatest republican democracy - they had better give us more than what they have offered so far.

Otherwise, people will assume they are not being leveled with.

Trump's team stated very clearly that yesterday's press conference was intended as an opening statement. Meaning they do not intend to present their case to the media, Tucker included, but instead to offer their proof in court.

Probably a very good idea, because obviously the media feels its their job to publicly discredit anything and everything the team presents on the spot. Why would any prosecutor show his cards in that situation?

[catfish1957]

Tucker is one of the last honest, and honorable media commentators.

He is just looking for evidence and information with which to validate others' claims. 

So far, the Trump team has given us very little to support their very serious allegations. What they have supplied so far does raise serious questions about the propriety of vote-counting procedures in a couple of key electoral precincts. But that is a far cry from what has been headlined and promised.

Now, it may well be that Trump's attorneys are waiting to prove their case in court, but given the enormous and unprecedented gravity of the charges they are making - the theft of a national election in the world's largest and greatest republican democracy - they had better give us more than what they have offered so far.

Otherwise, people will assume they are not being leveled with.

Again, I restate my "million dripping faucets" analogy.  Dilute the fraud down, but do it on a massive scale.  Democrats know there is not enough time or resources to cumulatively prove enough to overturn the election. IMO...  (1)  There was massive fraud, too much evidence is there not to refute it. (2)  Was it enough to overturn the results for a Trump victory?  I don't know, and anyone says they know is lying.

[skeeter]

Again, I restate my "million dripping faucets" analogy.  Dilute the fraud down, but do it on a massive scale.  Democrats know there is not enough time or resources to cumulatively prove enough to overturn the election. IMO...  (1)  There was massive fraud, too much evidence is there not to refute it. (2)  Was it enough to overturn the results for a Trump victory?  I don't know, and anyone says they know is lying.

I'm convinced there was enough fraud to overturn what should've been a Trump win, and am not lying. But can it be proven? I have no idea.

[sneakypete]

Tucker is one of the last honest, and honorable media commentators.

He is just looking for evidence and information with which to validate others' claims. 

So far, the Trump team has given us very little to support their very serious allegations.

@andy58-in-nh

That's how it works. You make allegations to get an investigation going,and once you discover provable FACTS,you can go on to filing criminal charges.

Even facts are not "facts" until they have been proven to be true in court,but you will never get to court without making allegations that need to be investigated.

It's the old "putting the cart in front of the horse" thing.

[Bigun]

Tucker is one of the last honest, and honorable media commentators.

He is just looking for evidence and information with which to validate others' claims. 

So far, the Trump team has given us very little to support their very serious allegations. What they have supplied so far does raise serious questions about the propriety of vote-counting procedures in a couple of key electoral precincts. But that is a far cry from what has been headlined and promised.

Now, it may well be that Trump's attorneys are waiting to prove their case in court, but given the enormous and unprecedented gravity of the charges they are making - the theft of a national election in the world's largest and greatest republican democracy - they had better give us more than what they have offered so far.

Otherwise, people will assume they are not being leveled with.

Sorry @andy58-in-nh but IMHO Tucker is just doing what he is required to do in order to keep getting those fat paychecks.  He knows damned well why evidence cannot and should not be presented on his TV show.

[catfish1957]

I'm convinced there was enough fraud to overturn what should've been a Trump win, and am not lying. But can it be proven? I have no idea.

Disagree, just for  S & G's earlier in the week, I looked at Trump camp numerical claims, and he still comes up short. 
Before it can even be proven, there has to be the numbers to back it up.

[Bigun]

I'm convinced there was enough fraud to overturn what should've been a Trump win, and am not lying. But can it be proven? I have no idea.

I'm pretty damned sure we are going to find out!  And I do not believe Trump's lawyers would put their reputations on the line by saying things that cannot prove in courts of law.

[catfish1957]

Sorry @andy58-in-nh but IMHO Tucker is just doing what he is required to do in order to keep getting those fat paychecks.  He knows damned well why evidence cannot and should not be presented on his TV show.

OTOH, he probably alienated at least half of his base viewers last night.  Tucker's power and standing in Fox is just as strong as his ratings.  Watch what Fox does if he starts pulling in Morning Joe numbers.

[Bigun]

Disagree, just for  S & G's earlier in the week, I looked at Trump camp numerical claims, and he still comes up short. 
Before it can even be proven, there has to be the numbers to back it up.

Did you take the systemic cheating built into the system into account when you did that calculation?

[catfish1957]

Did you take the systemic cheating built into the system into account when you did that calculation?

I went with the hard core numbers the Trump camp claims.  Have these "systemic" issues been quanitifed yet?  Not sure on that one.

[skeeter]

Disagree, just for  S & G's earlier in the week, I looked at Trump camp numerical claims, and he still comes up short. 
Before it can even be proven, there has to be the numbers to back it up.

Numerical claims, as in the anecdotal instances of 'found' ballots? I'm considering the highly unlikely statistical patterns in battleground states and scope of fraud made possible by the equipment used for tabulation.

[catfish1957]

Numerical claims, as in the anecdotal instances of 'found' ballots? I'm considering the highly unlikely statistical patterns in battleground states and scope of fraud made possible by the equipment used for tabulation.

Much like in Bigun's comment, I am sure there are phantom areas of fraud.  But until, we get some iron clad quantification, it is sadly....  the numbers are what they are.  Hopefully, the Trump camp has some more cards to play, but all I know is that when this goes to court, the judges are going to look a full quantifiable cases of fraud, or mistakes.....   Not systemic problems or glitches that may or may not have impacted the numbers.  Not trying to be a doom and gloomer on this matter, just trying to keep the perspective that solid numbers are the only thing that matters or dictates the results from an impartial judge.

[Bigun]

I went with the hard core numbers the Trump camp claims.  Have these "systemic" issues been quanitifed yet?  Not sure on that one.

In yesterday's presser Sidney Powell mentioned that one actual vote for Trump was translated as .75 of a vote and an actual vote for Biden was translated to 1.25 votes IIRC.  I do not know if those are actual or she was just making an analogy. @catfish1957

Whatever the actual programmed in algorithm was, Trump was overwhelming it and that is why they had to stop counting simultaneously in those five or six states.

[Bigun]

Much like in Bigun's comment, I am sure there are phantom areas of fraud.  But until, we get some iron clad quantification, it is sadly....  the numbers are what they are.  Hopefully, the Trump camp has some more cards to play, but all I know is that when this goes to court, the judges are going to look a full quantifiable cases of fraud, or mistakes.....   Not systemic problems or glitches that may or may not have impacted the numbers.  Not trying to be a doom and gloomer on this matter, just trying to keep the perspective that solid numbers are the only thing that matters or dictates the results from an impartial judge.

IMHO they are going to prove that the Smartmatic (Dominion) problems were/are systemic and effected the election outcomes everywhere they were used rather than just in the swing states.

[skeeter]

Much like in Bigun's comment, I am sure there are phantom areas of fraud.  But until, we get some iron clad quantification, it is sadly....  the numbers are what they are.  Hopefully, the Trump camp has some more cards to play, but all I know is that when this goes to court, the judges are going to look a full quantifiable cases of fraud, or mistakes.....   Not systemic problems or glitches that may or may not have impacted the numbers.  Not trying to be a doom and gloomer on this matter, just trying to keep the perspective that solid numbers are the only thing that matters or dictates the results from an impartial judge.

I understand.

But it would be a tragedy of epic proportions if Trump's team were to show how the Doiminion tabulating machines and Smartmatic software are easily hackable and offer as a feature the ability to manipulate the vote, which was tabulated overseas, together with the statistically impossible trends and totals from the 11/3 election, as well as hundreds of affidavits and a thousand individual instances of fraud, and have SCOTUS say 'no solid proof, sorry'.

The fate of the nation really does hang in the balance.

[catfish1957]

In yesterday's presser Sidney Powell mentioned that one actual vote for Trump was translated as .75 of a vote and an actual vote for Biden was translated to 1.25 votes IIRC.  I do not know if those are actual or she was just making an analogy. @catfish1957

Whatever the actual programmed in algorithm was, Trump was overwhelming it and that is why they had to stop counting simultaneously in those five or six states.

It would be wonderful if we found out that the DNC/DHS/FBI and the rest of the Swampy alphabets were behind a collusion to throw this election. I know something fishy happened early Wednesday morning that completly reversed the direction and momentum of the tally.  Will the dots be connectable before election certification deadlines?  Not a chance.

[catfish1957]

IMHO they are going to prove that the Smartmatic (Dominion) problems were/are systemic and effected the election outcomes everywhere they were used rather than just in the swing states.

Not only are they going to have to prove it, they are going to have to prove it at warp speed.  We are in the 3rd week of November, and state election certifications are looming.

[skeeter]

Not only are they going to have to prove it, they are going to have to prove it at warp speed.  We are in the 3rd week of November, and state election certifications are looming.

Perhaps they can create enough doubt in the minds of the battleground state legislatures.

[Bigun]

It would be wonderful if we found out that the DNC/DHS/FBI and the rest of the Swampy alphabets were behind a collusion to throw this election. I know something fishy happened early Wednesday morning that completly reversed the direction and momentum of the tally.  Will the dots be connectable before election certification deadlines?  Not a chance.

And that is where you and I disagree @catfish1957