Posted on Jul 20, 2021
Do you believe Joe Biden is our legitimate Commander-in-Chief?
1.29K
61
103
6
6
0
The last time I heard, a majority of Republicans believe Trump is still Commander in Chief and that the election was "stolen" . . . Now, I know we are all professionals and will follow orders from the occupant of the White House . . . That's not what I'm asking . . . I'm asking whether U, especially if U identify with the Republican Party, believe Biden is legitimately the president . . .
If U don't, can U comment on how U think EVERY election-fraud court case that was launched on Trump's behalf (the last number I heard was over 80) was laughed out of court (including out of the Supreme Court TWICE) . . .
Thanks!
If U don't, can U comment on how U think EVERY election-fraud court case that was launched on Trump's behalf (the last number I heard was over 80) was laughed out of court (including out of the Supreme Court TWICE) . . .
Thanks!
Posted in these groups: 
Office of the President (POTUS)
Office of the President (POTUS)
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 14
5
5
0
To quote a famous former Sec of State, “at this point what difference does it make?” Mr Biden was sworn in on Jan 20 so he’s the CinC till Jan 2025 at least.
(5)
(0)
SFC Art Robinson
I hear ya, Sir . . . To most it is indeed a done deal . . . But to those working their little asses off to make it harder for Dems to vote, not so much . . . (insert "mad as hell" emoji here)
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
Is he the legitimate Commander in Chief? Yes. Was there voter Fraud? Yes. Was there enough fraud to sway the election? No.
Anyone who believes there is zero voter fraud is just as wrong as someone who believes Trump was not legitimately beaten. There may not be widespread fraud but it is out there. Could it sway and election, probably.
With that, there is also a very broad spectrum of what makes it "harder to vote" for anyone. Requiring an ID or a witness to vote seems like a pretty low bar for a voter to meet. Gerrymandering, intelligence questions, being a property owner, or not allowing someone to absentee vote in any form, too restrictive.
I can tell you from personal experience that I could have voted multiple times in the last few elections because states do not manage their voter roles well enough. With PCS moves from states who not only send you a ballot to your address but actually forward it to your new permanent address out of state shows there is definitely room for fraud. There is great room for improvement in the voting system.
Anyone who believes there is zero voter fraud is just as wrong as someone who believes Trump was not legitimately beaten. There may not be widespread fraud but it is out there. Could it sway and election, probably.
With that, there is also a very broad spectrum of what makes it "harder to vote" for anyone. Requiring an ID or a witness to vote seems like a pretty low bar for a voter to meet. Gerrymandering, intelligence questions, being a property owner, or not allowing someone to absentee vote in any form, too restrictive.
I can tell you from personal experience that I could have voted multiple times in the last few elections because states do not manage their voter roles well enough. With PCS moves from states who not only send you a ballot to your address but actually forward it to your new permanent address out of state shows there is definitely room for fraud. There is great room for improvement in the voting system.
(4)
(0)
SFC Art Robinson
LTC Kevin B. - (REPEAT OF POST ABOVE)
Sir, just to set the record straight, FOX, OAN, and NEWSMAX were making nightly hourly claims about how Dominion voting machines were made in Venezuela with a trap door to change votes which resulted in widespread rigging of election for Biden . . . They made these claims over a period of maybe a month (I'd have to go back and check timeframe), until Dominion threatened to sue the pants off of them of libel, at which point all three had to air retractions on their earlier bullshit . . . But, to my knowledge, they only aired the retraction once . . . As compared to hourly-nightly claims of fraud, which do U think reached more of their sheep?
Here are a few links:
NEWMAX ISSUES RETRACTION: https://www.conservativebeaver.com/2021/05/01/newsmax-settles-dominion-lawsuit-issues-retraction-on-2020-coverage/
FOX SUED: https://www.dominionvoting.com/latest-news-dominion-files-defamation-suit-against-fox-news-network-llc/
AMERICAN THINKER ISSUES RETRACTION: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/conservative-website-admits-its-stories-about-dominion-were-completely-false-in-massive-retraction/ar-BB1cN53Z
Sir, just to set the record straight, FOX, OAN, and NEWSMAX were making nightly hourly claims about how Dominion voting machines were made in Venezuela with a trap door to change votes which resulted in widespread rigging of election for Biden . . . They made these claims over a period of maybe a month (I'd have to go back and check timeframe), until Dominion threatened to sue the pants off of them of libel, at which point all three had to air retractions on their earlier bullshit . . . But, to my knowledge, they only aired the retraction once . . . As compared to hourly-nightly claims of fraud, which do U think reached more of their sheep?
Here are a few links:
NEWMAX ISSUES RETRACTION: https://www.conservativebeaver.com/2021/05/01/newsmax-settles-dominion-lawsuit-issues-retraction-on-2020-coverage/
FOX SUED: https://www.dominionvoting.com/latest-news-dominion-files-defamation-suit-against-fox-news-network-llc/
AMERICAN THINKER ISSUES RETRACTION: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/conservative-website-admits-its-stories-about-dominion-were-completely-false-in-massive-retraction/ar-BB1cN53Z
Newsmax settles Dominion lawsuit, issues retraction on 2020 coverage – Conservative Beaver
A worker passes a Dominion Voting ballot scanner while setting up a polling location at an elementary school in Gwinnett County, Ga., outside of Atlanta on Jan. 4, 2021. Newsmax has apologized to an employee of Dominion Voting Systems. (AP Photo/Ben Gray)
(0)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
LCDR Keith Trepanier - Those headlines aren't contradictory with what I wrote. If the state officials said they didn't find evidence of voter fraud, and the media reported that, it's not the same as the media claiming that no voter fraud exists. It just means that a state official informed the media that they didn't find evidence of voter fraud. Plus, the media reporting the outcomes of court cases doesn't mean no evidence exists. It just means that the claimants failed to provide evidence of their claims. Everyone admits that isolated examples of voter fraud have occurred. That rules out the "no fraud exists" declaration. The issue centers around the level of voter fraud and whether or not anyone claiming it occurred in the 2020 election was ever able to provide proof. I think you're cause a broad brush to a much more nuanced discussion.
Regarding concealed carry versus student ID cards, I disagree. If I worked at a state university, I would be a state employee. If I issued a student ID, that would be a government-issued ID. Yes, non-citizens can get a student ID, but you don't just show an ID and vote. Your ID gets compared to the voter registration rolls, and those rolls are based on having proved citizenship. So, only citizens who have registered to vote AND have a student ID would be voting. That screens out non-citizens. Banning use of IDs from private colleges? I get it. Banning use of IDs from public colleges? That makes zero sense, unless your real aim is to restrict student voting.
Regarding "more readily available in certain locations", in Alabama the state closed 31 motor vehicle offices for budgetary reasons. A study conducted by the concluded the closures disproportionately impacted Black communities. That is a clear example of how the game is played.
Regarding your point "That stuff affects all political parties, not just one or the other", an element of truth exists in that argument. However, the untold part of that argument is "that stuff" doesn't impact voters equally, so it shouldn't be used to reshape the electorate. If I implement something that cuts my voters by 1%, but cuts your voters by 10%, yes both of our voter groups have been impacted....but not equally. So, that argument falls flat because the requirement has tilted the playing field.
The bottom line remains...until the voter ID requirement gets implemented in a way that doesn't favor one party over the other, I'm against it.
Regarding concealed carry versus student ID cards, I disagree. If I worked at a state university, I would be a state employee. If I issued a student ID, that would be a government-issued ID. Yes, non-citizens can get a student ID, but you don't just show an ID and vote. Your ID gets compared to the voter registration rolls, and those rolls are based on having proved citizenship. So, only citizens who have registered to vote AND have a student ID would be voting. That screens out non-citizens. Banning use of IDs from private colleges? I get it. Banning use of IDs from public colleges? That makes zero sense, unless your real aim is to restrict student voting.
Regarding "more readily available in certain locations", in Alabama the state closed 31 motor vehicle offices for budgetary reasons. A study conducted by the concluded the closures disproportionately impacted Black communities. That is a clear example of how the game is played.
Regarding your point "That stuff affects all political parties, not just one or the other", an element of truth exists in that argument. However, the untold part of that argument is "that stuff" doesn't impact voters equally, so it shouldn't be used to reshape the electorate. If I implement something that cuts my voters by 1%, but cuts your voters by 10%, yes both of our voter groups have been impacted....but not equally. So, that argument falls flat because the requirement has tilted the playing field.
The bottom line remains...until the voter ID requirement gets implemented in a way that doesn't favor one party over the other, I'm against it.
(0)
(0)
LCDR Keith Trepanier
"The bottom line remains...until the voter ID requirement gets implemented in a way that doesn't favor one party over the other, I'm against it."
It doesn't favor one party over the other. Student IDs or concealed carry IDs are really irrelevant as they are secondary IDs. How did the student or the CCW carrier prove who they were to get that ID? A driver's license? A state ID? A passport? A birth certificate? If they had any of those they either already have a picture ID or get one just as easily as they both got their student or CCW ID. But you are correct. It is biased. the CCW carrier had to provide much more proof than the student did. Yet, you want the student ID to hold the same sway as the CCW. That is a very biased. I see which way you want the game to be played.
How many current or potential legal voters do not have a photo ID? I would argue very few. I would also argue that the reason those that don't have them is because they choose not to have them, not because they can't get one.
It is strange that where I live there are many predominantly white communities. Those communities don't have a license bureau within 30+ miles, yet everyone seems to be able to get an ID when needed. If those in rural areas can get an ID, register a vehicle, or even make a copy, why do you think someone in a black community is not capable of doing the same?
It doesn't favor one party over the other. Student IDs or concealed carry IDs are really irrelevant as they are secondary IDs. How did the student or the CCW carrier prove who they were to get that ID? A driver's license? A state ID? A passport? A birth certificate? If they had any of those they either already have a picture ID or get one just as easily as they both got their student or CCW ID. But you are correct. It is biased. the CCW carrier had to provide much more proof than the student did. Yet, you want the student ID to hold the same sway as the CCW. That is a very biased. I see which way you want the game to be played.
How many current or potential legal voters do not have a photo ID? I would argue very few. I would also argue that the reason those that don't have them is because they choose not to have them, not because they can't get one.
It is strange that where I live there are many predominantly white communities. Those communities don't have a license bureau within 30+ miles, yet everyone seems to be able to get an ID when needed. If those in rural areas can get an ID, register a vehicle, or even make a copy, why do you think someone in a black community is not capable of doing the same?
(0)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
LCDR Keith Trepanier - "It doesn't favor one party over the other." The research doesn't back up your assertion.
You haven't convinced me to change my stance on voter ID requirements. I've seen and heard far too many of the behind-the-scenes conversations about exactly what these policies/laws are designed to accomplish. They are indeed designed to shape the electorate, but politicians won't say it publicly because they want to have plausible deniability. At the same time, they know full well that their preferred voters will carry their water...because their mindset is that "all is fair in politics in order to get what you want".
You haven't convinced me to change my stance on voter ID requirements. I've seen and heard far too many of the behind-the-scenes conversations about exactly what these policies/laws are designed to accomplish. They are indeed designed to shape the electorate, but politicians won't say it publicly because they want to have plausible deniability. At the same time, they know full well that their preferred voters will carry their water...because their mindset is that "all is fair in politics in order to get what you want".
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Joe Biden is President. IF it is shown that he didn't legitimately win the election, we are entering uncharted waters. I can't see how we can ignore it. Joe Biden will have to be replaced and I suspect that we will be treated to Acting President Nancy Pelosi until the issue is decided (Kamala's election as VEEP would also have to be declared null and void). I'm guessing that the Democrats will sue for a new election and the GOP will sue for the legitimate results of the 2020 election. (Although, on careful consideration, they too may sue for a new election inasmuch as President Trump has never had their enthusiastic support). The whole shit-show could play out until 2024 and we'll get a new election with President Trump being eligible to run again. Last suspicion: President Trump might prefer a 2024 election inasmuch as he would be limited to serving out his term until 2025, and that wouldn't leave him time to sort out Biden's mess.
(4)
(0)
SFC Art Robinson
Hadn't considered that possibility, Sir . . . Good points . . .
After I posted the question, I had an interesting (though not too relevant) thought . . . Imagine if it had been another African American candidate who had beaten Trump . . . All the Right's claims of illegitimacy would take on a WHOLE other troubling appearance . . . Then we would definitely, I believe, see quite the shit-show in response . . .
After I posted the question, I had an interesting (though not too relevant) thought . . . Imagine if it had been another African American candidate who had beaten Trump . . . All the Right's claims of illegitimacy would take on a WHOLE other troubling appearance . . . Then we would definitely, I believe, see quite the shit-show in response . . .
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google