Even if there were no frauds, which is not true, a lot of his votes are from mail-in ballots. Comparing that to other presidents' mostly in-person ballots is, in my opinion, not fair. That is like comparing two test scores, one is done at a university facility with a TA watching, and one that was done at home over Internet.
Not very accurate. Here are his catch phrases.
- Look, fat, here's the deal.
- If you ..., then you ain't black.
- You know, you know, the thing!
- One nation indivisible, under God, for real!
- Come on, man.
- Folks!
- One billion million..., excuse me.
I already answered that. "To sum up the legacy of his presidency", sort of making a graduation video when you graduate. I am NOT saying that I am sure that was the reason; I just mean it could be that, in case he is thinking that his chance of winning is slim, because you asserted that this video implies that he is not thinking of that.
And is the video recently made, not something that was made during his campaign?
Giuliani keeps mentioning (in fact, even in his latest video) that a few hundred thousand more mail-in ballots received than issued. But Tim Pool said that it was a false news weeks ago. If Giuliani were right, it should have been an undeniable, hard evidence of massive fraud, but I don't hear any big mainstream media even mentioning this, so I have to think that it was a false news. I wondered if this is the same kind of news that news, ignored by everyone except Trump's tream.
Eh... Sorry for being pessimistic, but this does not say anithing about that, in my opinion. It could be Trump's summing-up message of his presidency before leaving the office. Of course, I don't mean that Trump is about to concede; I just mean that it does not definitively say anything.
Can someone teach me? I don't want to have false hope. Is this an undeniable fact (undeniable by Democrats) or just an opinion? I briefly read the article and it seems that the total number of votes registered in something called SURE is about 200K less. What is SURE? Is the number of votes registered in SURE precedes that was counted by Dominion or hands?
A long shot may not hit the target, but if you don't shoot at all, you are guaranteed not to hit the target. Pence should at least try the long shot. What does it matter, if that fails, he loses his VP position. If he doesn't do it, he loses his VP position AND a lot of Trump supporters will not vote for his future presidential election.
Good for them, because statistically black men don't marry to the women they impregnated. Those women will be so-called single mothers. Which statistically means that their children will more likely to be criminals.
I am not a native English speaker and the English term for the classification of "men" and "women" also has a meaning of "copulation". Of course, I mean the word "sex". So, I had been using "gender" to avoid the confusion. But the left are now claiming that "gender" and "sex" are different. They say "gender" is something like the person's feeling and "sex" is the biological thing.
If I understood what they are trying to say correctly, which I probably did not, isn't "gender" something like which of the traditional male/female role that the person prefers? But if that is the case, I am NOT interested in the "gender" of strangers. That is, in some cases, I may need to know if some unknown person is a male or a female, but not whether the person likes traditional male roles or female roles. Why should I? That kind of information is irrelevant to me.
But aren't the left using this "gender"/"sex" distinction like a trap? When we are talking about men/women, we are talking about "sex" but we may use the term "gender" to avoid confusion with "copulation", and the left are saying "ah ha!" and explains the "gender" as the role that one prefers?
If a woman who gave birth to a baby prefers traditional male roles like, I don't know, building houses, doing wrestling or something, and hates traditional female roles like cooking or wearing dresses, good for her. She has every right to do those things she like and not to do the things she does not like, regardless of her sex, but that does not make her a "male" in the sense I think about, which is now called "biological male".
My perception is that this is because white people actually have achieved many superior things to be proud of, and the other listed groups have little. You could think you are superior even if you are not, but to others, it would look like a joke and not even worth to bother. But if you are proud of yourself and you are actually superior, this is a threat to the people who know they are inferior. White people pay lip service to "black/gay pride", but they don't actually think black/gay people have much to be proud of, so it is like a teacher's saying "oh, you're so great" to a special child who solved "1+2 = ".
No, I am not white.
What I want to happen and what I think is likely to happen are two separate things, I think. For example, when I buy a lottery ticket, I want that I got the jackpot, but I know that it probably is not going to happen (low chance).
I really do want Trump to win, mainly because of China (letting China keep growing is very bad for the US and for the peace of East Asia, in my opinion), but it seems to me that Trump's chance of winning is almost none, unless Trump and Pence takes some drastic measures that they are legally entitled to. But Trump does not seem to have strong will to do such things. I don't know about Pence, but probably neither does Pence.
Well, 6th January is just one week away, so let's watch what happens on that day. My best scenario is that Pence rejects Biden's duelling votes citing frauds, unconstitutional rule changes (which the lower-court judge said "have merits and probably will win") and other proven irregularities like weird massive "indefinite confinement" votes.