So SR, after I agree that the Dems conceded the 2016 election the day after but then I point out that they proceeded over the next 4 years to not concede it, you tell me I'm wrong because they conceded it the day after the election, while totally ignoring the facts that they then proceeded to not concede it.

Saying one thing and doing another has always been a problem for you, hasn't it? But you'll continue to ignore the actions and rely on the lies.

Unwilling to address the real issues here or unable to understand the real issues here? With SR its so hard to tell.

Still waiting on you to provide examples of "When you get pulled up on anything they (views) change at the drop of a hat."I guess we can now accept that you just made that up out of frustration that you lost again.

Dear mhaze,

Lol.

Mate you do crap on don't you.

Really everything else you put was utter dross.

For instance - “*attempts to get electors to vote in a 'faithless' fashion..."for the first time since 1808, multiple faithless electors voted against their pledged qualified presidential candidate."”

Given only 2 defected from Trump but 5 defected from Hillary this is just yet another own goal from you.

“And the daddy of them all...the Mueller 'inquiry', designed to try to prove Russia-Trump collusion so as to get him out of office. Of coarse(sic) it found nothing but that's a mere detail to the likes of SR”

From Wikipedia

“The United States Intelligence Community concluded on January 6, 2017, that the Russian government had interfered in the 2016 elections[20][21] in order to "undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency."[22] A Special Counsel investigation of alleged collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign began in May 2017[23][24] and ended in March 2019. The investigation concluded that Russian interference to favor Trump's candidacy occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion", but it "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government." “

Sure there was no smoking gun but there was an unseemly cosy relationship between the Trump camp and the Russians who were in a “ sweeping and systematic fashion” trying to turn the election for Trump.

This was entirely deserving of an investigation. This wasn't the Democrats not conceding the election at all.

Any anything the Democrats did during his term in no way compares to the utter bastardry of Mitch McConnell has used to obstruct Obama at every turn and that will continue.

“Just as in 2010, when McConnell said that his number one priority was to make sure that Obama was a one-term president—even as the country was struggling to recover from the Great Recession—he is now vowing to obstruct whatever a Democratic president might try to accomplish.”
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/03/06/under-a-democratic-president-mcconnell-vows-a-return-to-total-obstruction/

"Mate you do crap on don't you."

Translation for those who don't speak SR-ese:

He's asking that I stop pointing out that he made utterly unsupportable assertions that he won't even try to defend.

OK SR, I've had my fun with you on that one and I'll let it go.

As to the collusion hoax. I appreciate that this is one of those issues where you reach the conclusion and then go looking for the evidence, any evidence, irrespective of how irrelevant. I don't want to litigate this all over again but these are the key facts:

* there most certainly was Russian usage of social media to disrupt the electoral process. But it was minute. Their Facebook purchases was about 0.01% of total purchases. Their total spend on the election was less than 0.0001% of all spending ie totally inconsequential. There was no evidence that even one vote was turned.

* they didn't actually support Trump but oppose Clinton. They also showed support for Bernie. And after Trump won they then started supporting Dem efforts to protest the win.

* There's no evidence they hacked anything. Just assertions - you know all about them don't you. They never examined the DNC server allegedly hacked and Wikileaks have maintained all along that the Podesta stuff didn't come from the Russians.

* there was no evidence of collusion. None. No one has been charged with collusion. Mueller never presented any evidence of collusion.

* Comey knew there was no collusion even before the inauguration. Mueller and his team knew within two months of the start of their 'investigation'. But they continued for a further 26 months until Barr called time. Why? Because the 'investigation' was used by the Dems as a means to get Trump.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots#John_F._Kennedy
the above makes interesting background reading.

I put out a previous discussion topic about the need to go back to the polls in the US, essentially to "just be on the safe side". Imagine if that did happen, all of this violence could have been avoided.

This violence will now only get worse. It will not improve and as Australia turns into more like the US as some claim, then it is only a matter of time before it happens here again like it did in 1996.

NathanJ,

For Christ's sake!

How many times do I have to tell you people: Australia has a Chinese future!