The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Seriati on December 04, 2020, 10:35:23 AM

Title: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Seriati on December 04, 2020, 10:35:23 AM
So it looks like part of the evidence collected to date and shown to the Georgia Legislature involves what appears to be election fraud of a scale that could in fact have changed the result of election.  Specifically, poll workers caught on camera removing election observers from the counting room and then taking out suitcases of ballots to be counted while those observers were not present.  Based on the length of time involved and the number of ballots that could have been processed in that time, it would be more than enough to overturn the margin of victory.  Even counting ballots in that circumstance is election fraud, let alone counting ballots from such a dubious source.

So I'm curious, what remedies are actual possible and conceivable in such a situation.  Do you "flip" the state?  Do you conduct a full analysis - knowing full well that there is a deadline on this that will then most likely be missed and we'll either elect Biden President (when he may have only won by fraud) or elect to hold off creating the very circumstance the media has been selling us for months (i.e., Trump refuses to leave office)?

It's interesting that the media predicted a result that almost certainly would only happen if significant but not decisive evidence of voter fraud was found, almost like they knew that voter fraud was going to happen and be found but wanted to put a marker in the fight declaring it "not enough" pre-emptively.

And it's not enough, to me, to claim that flipping GA won't overturn the election as a whole.  Finding something this blatant calls into question every irregularity everywhere.  The targeted swing states were known for at least year, plenty of time to have set plans in motion virtually everywhere. 

And even if you reject that election fraud occurred, I'd still like to know what remedies you think are actually possible and acceptable if you did believe fraud occurred.  We had a judge order a new election earlier this year in one NJ race, but I can't imagine anyone would accept that for a national election.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Fenring on December 04, 2020, 10:52:15 AM
I couldn't comment on what the actual law says should be done in a situation such as you describe. But it seems to me that if it was clear that there was voter fraud and the result of the election was doubtful I would personally want the result to be delayed rather than kept on time. However it creates a conflict of interest for whoever would be in charge during the transition period; for instance if Trump remained president past his term it would be in his interest to delay as long as possible. Likewise for whoever else might be a temporary president, like speaker of the house. So if it is required that at all times there is a president, maybe it would be good to have some special clause for this exact situation so that someone from outside became acting president just on a provisional basis until the new president could be announced, perhaps an ex-president.

Would it be within the realm of possibility to actually have an entire state re-vote and conduct the process from scratch if the 'real result' was irretrievable?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on December 04, 2020, 10:55:49 AM
Just because it happened in one state does not mean all of the other states can be questioned.  So even if this state goes Trump, he still looses.

Investigate this video and what they say happened.  If illegal actions were taken, prosecute those responsible.  I do not see any court being able to order a new election with the same people running.

Not sure what you meant by "the media predicted a result that almost certainly would only happen if significant but not decisive evidence of voter fraud was found".  The media was predicted a much larger win by Biden than what happened.  It's almost like Trump's team submitted fraudulent votes that narrowed the margin of victory, especially in swing states.  I mean Ohio and Florida were suppose to be toss ups and Trump won them handily.  Has anyone checked there to see if Trump's team committed any fraud?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Fenring on December 04, 2020, 11:06:05 AM
Investigate this video and what they say happened.  If illegal actions were taken, prosecute those responsible.  I do not see any court being able to order a new election with the same people running.

Do you mean that there is no possible way for any court to do this, i.e. that there is simply no mechanism in the system to make it happen? Or do you mean that you simply predict that no one would have the will to do it?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on December 04, 2020, 11:09:21 AM
You might be able to have a court make one state redo their election, but the whole country?  That would take the SC I would think. And I would think some sort of action by Congress.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: wmLambert on December 04, 2020, 11:09:36 AM
Yes, the video shows Ruby Freeman, in the purple outfit, leading the vote scam. We are forensically, beginning to identify the wrong-doers, and the cloak of invisibility is being lifted. The question that Democrats avoid is to simply ask for a forensic audit to prove the vote was honest or scammed.

We already have proved there was massive fraud - going only one way - for Biden and against Trump. You think that if the Dems were innocent, they would want such an audit to prove it. None will.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on December 04, 2020, 11:12:50 AM
You have not proved anything, at least legally.  You have given some evidence, that is mostly disputed.  Your rush to judgement on this is telling.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: TheDrake on December 04, 2020, 11:20:44 AM
I watched the video, it is very disturbing. I'm waiting to see how this plays out when they start interrogating the people involved. If they were doing what it looks like, they might crumble for immunity and then everything could fall apart if the Trumpers were right all along. God only knows what happens then. Full recounts in all the marginal states? Demands for signature checks where one side looks for any excuse, like a squashed O or a missing middle initial? International observers? A do-over?

Maybe we should just become an autonomous collective.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on December 04, 2020, 11:22:10 AM
Or an autonomous collect commune.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on December 04, 2020, 11:23:45 AM
Damn this is one of those time where you are sure you have the quote right, and you don't. TheDrake is correct in his quote.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Fenring on December 04, 2020, 11:40:55 AM
Maybe we should just become an autonomous collective.

Trump is king of the who?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: yossarian22c on December 04, 2020, 11:49:25 AM
I watched the video, it is very disturbing. I'm waiting to see how this plays out when they start interrogating the people involved. If they were doing what it looks like, they might crumble for immunity and then everything could fall apart if the Trumpers were right all along. God only knows what happens then. Full recounts in all the marginal states? Demands for signature checks where one side looks for any excuse, like a squashed O or a missing middle initial? International observers? A do-over?

Maybe we should just become an autonomous collective.

Has anyone been able to do a data analysis on the tabulation machine for the time in question? Seems like there should be a log of the votes recorded during the time. I could see a judge potentially throwing out the votes recorded during the time in question. Particularly if the votes are unexpectedly correlated with one of the candidates. Fulton county suggests fraud for Biden, but I'm really curious to see how the tallies changed during those hours of voting.

Why did it take 1 month for Trump's dream team of lawyers to get around to checking up on what to date is the best evidence we've seen so far?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: LetterRip on December 04, 2020, 12:02:22 PM
If fingerprint analysis on the ballots is done - any fraudulent ballots should show a lack of fingerprints other than the ballot  counters.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Wayward Son on December 04, 2020, 12:09:52 PM
Quick question, Seriati, as I look up this video: who told you about it?  What's your source?

It's is already smelling like another tempest in a teapot/fake new story.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: yossarian22c on December 04, 2020, 12:10:48 PM
If fingerprint analysis on the ballots is done - any fraudulent ballots should show a lack of fingerprints other than the ballot  counters.

More people wearing gloves during the pandemic and after a hand recount of 5 million ballots I think any results from lack of finger prints would be inconclusive. The tabulation machine should have a clear log of ballots scanned and time. As such its really just a matter of a judge ordering analysis of the machine in question to see what happened between 10:30 and 1:30 on the date in question.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: yossarian22c on December 04, 2020, 12:15:03 PM
To be clear. I think a judge should order the logs of the tabulation machine in question to be examined and made public.

At this point I don't care how great of an explanation can be found, evidence from the machine logs would be useful. If they show 24,000 votes in a row for Biden/Dems then scrap all those votes without question. Same if they show 24,000 votes in a row for Trump/Republicans.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: TheDrake on December 04, 2020, 12:19:39 PM
If fingerprint analysis on the ballots is done - any fraudulent ballots should show a lack of fingerprints other than the ballot  counters.

Not really. Simple case, Fraudster 1 prepared them, Fraudster 2 counted them.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 04, 2020, 12:25:31 PM
Which video is this? Are we talking about https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moddNvyr3To ?

Yes, people counting without observers and bringing in votes from an unknown source should be enough to invalidate that whole count in that whole... city district, city, county? -- how are votes grouped, is "county" really the smallest grouping of votes you guys have? Seriously, tens of thousands of votes all counted in the same place?

If there's no way to check the machines about the votes that were counted in that particular timeframe, invalidate and redo the elections in the city district/city/county/whatever.

How are the vote counters appointed anyway?

Investigate and question all the people in that room, and go from there.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: TheDrake on December 04, 2020, 12:28:54 PM
Quote
Why did it take 1 month for Trump's dream team of lawyers to get around to checking up on what to date is the best evidence we've seen so far?

I could imagine it isn't easy to get hold of video like that. Who knows how long it took to acquire that evidence?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: yossarian22c on December 04, 2020, 12:40:00 PM
Quote
Why did it take 1 month for Trump's dream team of lawyers to get around to checking up on what to date is the best evidence we've seen so far?

I could imagine it isn't easy to get hold of video like that. Who knows how long it took to acquire that evidence?

I think it was live streamed. It was in a lot of places, not 100% sure about Georgia.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: LetterRip on December 04, 2020, 12:42:44 PM
If fingerprint analysis on the ballots is done - any fraudulent ballots should show a lack of fingerprints other than the ballot  counters.

Not really. Simple case, Fraudster 1 prepared them, Fraudster 2 counted them.

I meant those involved with the counting and/or fraud.  All legitimate ballots will likely have the fingerprints of the person who filled out and mailed the ballot.

If the envelopes were kept (I'd expect that to be standard practice) - there should be a 1 to 1 correspondence if the ballots are legit.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on December 04, 2020, 12:43:41 PM
In Ohio, and I think most states, votes are counted by county (probably parish in LA).  It might be different in counties with large populations, but that would surprise me.  That is why counting in large population counties happen in large arenas  and convention centers, I think.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Wayward Son on December 04, 2020, 12:47:18 PM
Not that it has anything to do with this theoretical topic, but Georgia Republican officials have already disputed the narrative to the video. (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/georgia-suitcase-video-ballots-trump-b1766363.html)

Quote
Georgia's voting system implementation manager, Gabriel Sterling, said afterwards that the surveillance video provided no evidence that was suspicious, and that there was no wrongdoing.

Speaking to Lead Stories on Thursday, Mr Sterling was one of two Republican election officials in Georgia who denied the Trump campaign’s claims.

Mr Sterling said the suitcases were moved across a room as “normal procedure”, and that there was nothing “odd” about the process, because poll workers were tasked with scanning the ballots once observers and vote counters had left the State Farm Arena.

“If you look at the videotape, the work you see is the work you would expect, which is you take the sealed suitcase, you place the ballots on the scanner in manageable batches and you scan them,” Mr Sterling said.

Frances Watson, the chief investigator for Georgia’s secretary of state, told Lead Stories that Republican and Trump campaign observers were not told to leave, and that the ballots scanned in the surveillance video had already been counted, in contrast to Mr Giuliani and Ms Pick’s assertions.

“Nobody told them to stay. Nobody told them to leave. Nobody gave them any advice on what they should do,” she said. “And it was still open for them or the public to come back in to view at whatever time they wanted to, as long as they were still working.”

Ms Watson added that the ballots put through the scanners amounted to around 10,000, which was less than Joe Biden’s 12,670 vote margin over Mr Trump in the state.

Really, the only thing that makes the video look suspicious is the narrative.  Take that away, and you just have people moving and counting ballots.  I'm sure the Trump team has sworn affidavits, but didn't they also have a sworn affidavit that a truck full of ballots were being illegally moved into a counting area, with Joe Biden himself supervising?  ;D

It's worth investigating to make sure nothing untoward was happening, but I don't see much smoke, and certainly no gun. :)
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Lloyd Perna on December 04, 2020, 12:48:18 PM
Quick question, Seriati, as I look up this video: who told you about it?  What's your source?

It's is already smelling like another tempest in a teapot/fake new story.

The video analysis was presented as evidence in a Georgian Senate Hearing.  This is the best video I could find.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keANzinHWUA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keANzinHWUA)
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: LetterRip on December 04, 2020, 12:51:49 PM
yosarrian,

I agree on getting the tabulation logs.  As to people wearing gloves - seriously?  I'm good friends with many people who make extreme efforts to avoid Covid and none wear gloves.  I haven't seen anyone wear gloves since extremely early on the pandemic.  Anywho the lack of unique fingerprints would be additional evidence.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: LetterRip on December 04, 2020, 12:57:07 PM
Wayward,

thanks for the information - if accurate that sounds like another slam dunk defamation case.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 04, 2020, 01:07:07 PM
Quote
Really, the only thing that makes the video look suspicious is the narrative.  Take that away, and you just have people moving and counting ballots.

"Nobody told them to stay, nobody told them to leave" is *censored*ing stupid logic. And how will they prove that "nobody told them to leave"? Why weren't they told to stay? These guys thought an observer's participation is bloody *optional*?

If the counting process isn't observed, then it's worse than useless. When the vote counters noticed nobody was there to observe them, why didn't they *censored*ing stop counting and call for observers to come in before they continued?

I don't know if it's legally valid or invalid, I don't know if it's part of the normal process or not, but yes, counting without observers is certainly *censored*ing suspicious.

If that's the normal process, then change your bloody process. This is inexcusable.

The Caesar's wife must not only be actually honest, she must be above suspicion.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: yossarian22c on December 04, 2020, 01:20:29 PM
Wayward,

thanks for the information - if accurate that sounds like another slam dunk defamation case.

Let's hope the message gets out as people have claimed to identify one of the women in the video. Hope she has somewhere safe to bunker down until this is resolved.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: LetterRip on December 04, 2020, 01:21:18 PM
Quote

"Nobody told them to stay, nobody told them to leave" is *censored*ing stupid logic. And how will they prove that "nobody told them to leave"? Why weren't they told to stay? These guys thought an observer's participation is bloody *optional*?

The laws are generally written that observers have rights but not obligations nor are the counters obligated to wait for observers if they choose to leave or not show up.
  Otherwise the obsevors could force a delay in counting by choosing to leave.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: LetterRip on December 04, 2020, 01:23:04 PM

Let's hope the message gets out as people have claimed to identify one of the women in the video. Hope she has somewhere safe to bunker down until this is resolved.

Both have been identified.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Seriati on December 04, 2020, 01:26:47 PM
Yes, people counting without observers and bringing in votes from an unknown source should be enough to invalidate that whole count in that whole... city district, city, county? -- how are votes grouped, is "county" really the smallest grouping of votes you guys have? Seriously, tens of thousands of votes all counted in the same place?

Something like that does occur yes, and in this case, it's my understanding that this was one of the largest concentrations of voters.

Quote
How are the vote counters appointed anyway?

That's the rub, they're appointed locally, so in districts that are heavily DNC, they may all have been appointed under the supervision of the DNC and vice versa for the RNC.  The big fraud "advantage" between the parties favors the DNC because their voters tend to be highly concentrated in the largest districts in the US.  In some cases, historically, there haven't even been enough Republicans in a district to actually even provide poll watchers.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on December 04, 2020, 01:29:18 PM
Serati

Clarify between vote counters (usually civil servants I think) and poll watchers/count watchers, who are supplied by the parties, I think.

Does it count as fraud if a party does not send watchers?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: yossarian22c on December 04, 2020, 01:36:39 PM

Let's hope the message gets out as people have claimed to identify one of the women in the video. Hope she has somewhere safe to bunker down until this is resolved.

Both have been identified.

The question is if they've been correctly identified. I watched the video on YouTube. Most of the comments were calling for them to be arrested and many advocated capital punishment. If I were them I would be scared, really scared and not of any potential legal consequences. Which based on Wayword's update seems unlikely.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Seriati on December 04, 2020, 01:37:06 PM
Your question needs context to even make sense, msquared.  Why don't clarify what you are asking.

As to Wayward, the county board recertified the results on a straight party line vote 3-2.  The person testifying that the video didn't show anything untoward hadn't actually watched the video but was relying on his staff.  Can anyone say plausible deniability?

The video doesn't look suspicious because of a narrative.  The video looks criminal without a narrative.  The fact that so many are willing to jump on any narrative is actually interesting.  Can you cite to the law or published policy that demonstrates any of this was "ordinary course"?  Of course not.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on December 04, 2020, 01:42:18 PM
Serati

You were asked how vote counters were appointed. You said that they were appointed locally, usually by the DNC in large population areas.  I think vote counters work for the county board of election and are civil servant jobs, not appointed jobs.

Now poll and vote watchers are appointed by the respective parties. I believe those are normally volunteer positions.

I could be wrong for how things are done in GA.

However, as was pointed out, unless they can show that their poll watchers were told/forced to leave, there may not be anything to this. And again there might be.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 04, 2020, 01:43:06 PM
The laws are generally written that observers have rights but not obligations nor are the counters obligated to wait for observers if they choose to leave or not show up. Otherwise the obsevors could force a delay in counting by choosing to leave.

Oh, no, 'force a delay', that's way worse than throwing an entire election into suspicion. /s

Change your laws. This is stupid.

Any counting location that, for some reason or other, doesn't have observers show up (or has them leave prematurely) should be required to put out an official communication to all interested parties, so that the political parties will send observers within 30 minutes, or at the very least the political parties be forced to acknowledge that they *were* asked to provide observers and they had none available to do so.

You can afford to delay counting votes for 30 minutes or so. What you can't afford to do is provide people with reason to suspect election fraud.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: NobleHunter on December 04, 2020, 01:44:23 PM
Your question needs context to even make sense, msquared.  Why don't clarify what you are asking.

As to Wayward, the county board recertified the results on a straight party line vote 3-2.  The person testifying that the video didn't show anything untoward hadn't actually watched the video but was relying on his staff.  Can anyone say plausible deniability?

The video doesn't look suspicious because of a narrative.  The video looks criminal without a narrative.  The fact that so many are willing to jump on any narrative is actually interesting.  Can you cite to the law or published policy that demonstrates any of this was "ordinary course"?  Of course not.

Can you cite the law or published policy that demonstrates it isn't "ordinary course?"
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DonaldD on December 04, 2020, 01:48:04 PM
"What to do with actual vote fraud?"

Funny, I posted this yesterday, yet not a single person concerned with actual vote fraud responded...

Success!  Evidence of vote fraud, or at least an organized attempt, facilitated by a political operative, even!

Florida attorney under investigation for registering to vote in Georgia, encouraging others to do the same (https://www.wsbtv.com/news/politics/florida-attorney-under-investigation-registering-vote-georgia-encouraging-others-do-same/L6LTC2AHBFDMXPOTZKVMO5ESJQ/)

Oh wait, those are Republicans publicly discussing how to illegally register to vote in the Georgia runoff... sorry, carry on.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on December 04, 2020, 01:53:44 PM
I think they are implying massive vote fraud. This guy was caught and should be prosecuted. There is enough evidence to bring a case, I would think.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Wayward Son on December 04, 2020, 01:56:45 PM
The person testifying that the video didn't show anything untoward hadn't actually watched the video but was relying on his staff.  Can anyone say plausible deniability?

Could you please cite your source for this.

Quote
The video doesn't look suspicious because of a narrative.  The video looks criminal without a narrative.

Could you please provide your own narrative without reference to Trump's team's narrative, just based on what is shown in the video?

What I see are people walking around, one moving a container with wheels from under a desk, and counting ballots.  I see no reason to be suspicious about that container from under the desk.  I see no reason to be suspicious because observers weren't standing around.  What would cause you to be suspicious about the events without further information?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DonaldD on December 04, 2020, 02:00:14 PM
Is it the contention that the container with wheels under the desk was actually invisible prior to it having been moved from under the desk?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DonaldD on December 04, 2020, 02:47:12 PM
What would cause you to be suspicious about the events without further information?
Hello??  Unsolicited mail-in ballots in Nevada and Dominion voting machines, duh.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: TheDrake on December 04, 2020, 02:52:18 PM
My biggest question is, why present this to the legislature and not immediately take it to seek an injunction? Is it because this would also be dismissed, when rules of evidence are applied and an argument has to be made? Also, if this really was being live streamed, is it plausible that people would be committing massive fraud live on camera? That would be pretty brazen.

There seems to be a lot about these containers being under tables. It seems like a pretty logical place to put containers.

I'm starting to think I fell for their trick.

Aris, as far as requiring watchers, I don't know how that would work. They could all walk out and basically filibuster the election indefinitely. They probably left because they already saw those containers come in and didn't want to watch the boring process of feeding the scanner.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 04, 2020, 03:35:33 PM
Aris, as far as requiring watchers, I don't know how that would work. They could all walk out and basically filibuster the election indefinitely.

I don't have much tolerance for this level of excuse-making.

I suggest you spend like literally 10 seconds to think of a solution, and you would probably come up with several. "They could all walk out"? Who, are we talking about the entire nation here all together deciding at the same time to 'filibuster' the election?

Even if watchers are not technically "required", why are they not *requested*, loudly, publicly, so that they show up if available?

Can juries filibuster court cases indefinitely if they "walk out"? Are there no solutions that have been figured out for what to do when a juryist doesn't appear for court duty, no replacements or punishments for the missing juryist?

That's with a minute's worth of thought. Perhaps to ensure an election is above suspicion, you should even use *gasp* two minutes of thought for it before dismissing it as an unsolvable problem.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Seriati on December 04, 2020, 03:47:47 PM
Serati

You were asked how vote counters were appointed. You said that they were appointed locally, usually by the DNC in large population areas.  I think vote counters work for the county board of election and are civil servant jobs, not appointed jobs.

I can't speak to every single place as the process is controlled locally, without national standards, and may or may not be directly controlled by the state.  In most circumstances, poll workers are temporary workers, sometimes mostly volunteers.  So, here's one place - Philadelphia - that I picked mostly because it's synomous with election irregularities, if not down right cheating.  Here's what's required:

Quote
What are the requirements to be a poll worker?

To become a poll worker, you must:

    Be a citizen of the United States.
    Be a registered voter in Philadelphia. (Anyone who is not currently registered can register online at www.philadelphiavotes.com by clicking “Register to Vote.”)
    Be 18 years of age (unless you are 17 years old and actively enrolled in high school or secondary school).
    Not be a PA elected public official or a candidate.

If a person has been convicted of election related crimes under the election code, then they are unable to serve as a poll worker for 4 years (or for whatever length of time imposed by the courts).
https://www.phila.gov/2020-09-02-become-a-poll-worker/ (https://www.phila.gov/2020-09-02-become-a-poll-worker/)

Got to love that if you've been previously convicted of election related crimes, Philly takes the the extreme precaution of telling you that you're not eligible to be a poll worker for a whole four years (well unless the court set a lesser or greater time)!

You absolutely have to be registered in Philly, and in one of the two congressional districts in Philly Republicans are outnumbered by more than 10 to 1.  There were some 700 plus polling locations in Philly, and even more drop boxes for votes (that were themselves not monitored), over 8500 poll workers hired.  In PA you work in the precinct in which you are registered to vote.  It came out during the Romney-Obama election that 1 in 4 precincts in Philly contained less than 20 registered Republicans.  Those people would generally be the entire eligible pool of Republicans that were even eligible to be a poll worker in that precinct, and they'd still have to have applied and been selected. 

Quote
Now poll and vote watchers are appointed by the respective parties. I believe those are normally volunteer positions.

Watchers are, which is exactly why excluding them in districts where there isn't a balance of parties means effectively that excluding them turns it into a one party counting system.

Quote
However, as was pointed out, unless they can show that their poll watchers were told/forced to leave, there may not be anything to this. And again there might be.

It was pretty clear that the poll watchers reported they were told to leave because counting was done for the night.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Seriati on December 04, 2020, 03:50:05 PM
Can you cite the law or published policy that demonstrates it isn't "ordinary course?"

I hope you aren't seriously putting this question to me, this blatantly a stupid request.  The official Wayward cited claimed that what occurred on that recording was ordinary course, that is a factual claim that has to have evidence to be true.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Wayward Son on December 04, 2020, 03:58:31 PM
If I got an official from the election board in question to assert that what occurred is ordinary course of business for counting, would that be sufficient? ;)

Why would you need more than expert testimony?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on December 04, 2020, 04:02:25 PM
No they are all part of the fraud anyway.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Seriati on December 04, 2020, 04:18:53 PM
If I got an official from the election board in question to assert that what occurred is ordinary course of business for counting, would that be sufficient? ;)

Why would you need more than expert testimony?

Maybe because the official in question would be directly responsible for the fraud in question?  Massive self interest.

I would expect if you make a claim that you demonstrate it.  We both know you have no idea at all if this complied with any relevant requirements or if it was in fact in the ordinary course in a provable way.  You're accepting it as such purely based on the team you think it benefits.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on December 04, 2020, 04:23:00 PM
Just as you are.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 04, 2020, 04:24:29 PM
If I got an official from the election board in question to assert that what occurred is ordinary course of business for counting, would that be sufficient? ;)

Why would you need more than expert testimony?

"Expert testimony" isn't the word of God, obviously one must be able to challenge it.

At this point I do expect that it was (more likely than not) merely "ordinary course of business" and merely suspicious-looking (mainly because if it was actually illicit, I'd expect *one or two* people doing it, not all of them together) -- but the officials should be able to prove it, or at least be able to provide multiple testimonies including from years past and to the same effect, not merely have one guy from the same place effectively claim "That's just normal, we weren't doing anything wrong".

No they are all part of the fraud anyway.

The very point of observers, is that we don't and shouldn't trust the election officials. Lack of trust is how the system is supposed to work on.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: rightleft22 on December 04, 2020, 04:55:10 PM
Quote
The very point of observers, is that we don't and shouldn't trust the election officials. Lack of trust is how the system is supposed to work on.

I would hope it would be more of a Trust but Verify kind of situation. If not the working conditions for any election officials would/must really suck 
If you ever worked in a envioerment where you were not trusted you know what I mean
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Wayward Son on December 04, 2020, 05:00:30 PM
If I got an official from the election board in question to assert that what occurred is ordinary course of business for counting, would that be sufficient? ;)

Why would you need more than expert testimony?

Maybe because the official in question would be directly responsible for the fraud in question?  Massive self interest.

I would expect if you make a claim that you demonstrate it.  We both know you have no idea at all if this complied with any relevant requirements or if it was in fact in the ordinary course in a provable way.  You're accepting it as such purely based on the team you think it benefits.

I'm accepting it because the official in question happens to be the one who is the most knowledgeable about the local election laws and how the ballot counting is supposed to be done among all those who are questioning this procedure.  Who among those you are listening to has a greater knowledge? ;)

So if someone is saying this was not done according to the laws and procedures, it behooves that person to point out which laws and procedures were not followed, not for the person who says they were all followed to prove that he actually followed them.

What's the point of having a suspicion if you don't know what you are suspicious about?  Unless, of course, you just want to throw a pall of suspicion over everything, regardless of merit.  Then, of course, one should ask the reason why a person wants to create suspicion when he has no reason for that suspicion? ;)
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 04, 2020, 05:46:35 PM
If we discover massive voter fraud but it's said that it wasn't enough to overturn the election so Biden wins anyway, is that anything like Lance Armstrong being proven to have massively cheated but all of his victories stand because it's determined that he would have won anyway?

I'll also observe that the constant media refrain of "Trump alleges without any evidence..." is the exact same one we heard when Trump was alleging "without any evidence" that our government spied on his campaign and it turned out to be quite true.

If we find massive voter fraud in Georgia that was enough to decide the Georgia election that is as Biden might say, "a big bleeping deal." I've always thought and it may prove to be the case again that one of the main issues with this type of massive voter fraud is that even if you prove it once it's done then it's done and the election will stand. Even if people go to prison they'll wear their prison terms as a badge of honor and that is no disincentive when the stakes of the election have been framed as the Democrats have framed them, with Trump being put up there with Hitler as one of the most evil demagogues of the ages.

So my bottom line answer to what is actually going to be done in this case is essentially nothing.

Maybe people go to prison. Maybe systems get changed a little. But if there was massive voter fraud and yet the decision stands that in my book that means what I've said all along, even if you get caught you still get away with it in the big picture.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DonaldD on December 04, 2020, 05:47:59 PM
when Trump was alleging that our government spied on his campaign "without any evidence" and it turned out to be quite true.
No, it didn't.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 04, 2020, 05:51:10 PM
A distinction without a difference. I understand people will quibble but our government had phone recordings of Trump campaign people. I know the details and how it can be spun the other way but what our government did to the Trump campaign and the way it did it vindicated everything Trump said. I can understand why people would think no it didn't and that's fine. It will probably be the same way with massive voter fraud. Distinctions without a difference.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 04, 2020, 06:03:07 PM


Okay, to be thorough I changed the accusation a little bit. Just checked Snopes. I changed it to Trump saying that the government spied on his campaign which more generally is what he was saying. Trump actually said Obama did it and Snopes says there is no proof directly tying Obama to our government spying on the Trump campaign, but more broadly our government did spy on the Trump campaign. Trump was right about that. To me it doesn't matter so much whether Obama ordered it or not and just to bring it back around to massive voter fraud it doesn't matter whether or not Biden knew anything about it. I don't think he did but he sometimes doesn't know what state he's in or what office he's running for either.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Wayward Son on December 04, 2020, 06:45:05 PM
Quote
If we discover massive voter fraud but it's said that it wasn't enough to overturn the election so Biden wins anyway, is that anything like Lance Armstrong being proven to have massively cheated but all of his victories stand because it's determined that he would have won anyway?

No, it isn't, because Biden won because of the votes he got.  Saying he should be disqualified because someone may have cheated in his favor is disqualifying every single one of the 80,000,000 voters who voted for him.  Those other votes still stand, and if they were enough to elect Biden, the election stands.

Would you accept any candidate you voted for being disqualified because someone somewhere cheated on his behalf, and that cheating wouldn't have changed the results?  Not on your life, I would bet. :)

BTW, if it's shown that Trump committed massive fraud to convince people that there was massive voter fraud, don't you think there should be some penalty for that, too? ;)
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: kidv on December 04, 2020, 06:46:41 PM
"Speaking to Lead Stories on Thursday, Mr Sterling was one of two Republican election officials in Georgia who denied the Trump campaign’s claims.

Mr Sterling said the suitcases were moved across a room as “normal procedure”, and that there was nothing “odd” about the process, because poll workers were tasked with scanning the ballots once observers and vote counters had left the State Farm Arena.

“If you look at the videotape, the work you see is the work you would expect, which is you take the sealed suitcase, you place the ballots on the scanner in manageable batches and you scan them,” Mr Sterling said. 

Frances Watson, the chief investigator for Georgia’s secretary of state, told Lead Stories that Republican and Trump campaign observers were not told to leave, and that the ballots scanned in the surveillance video had already been counted, in contrast to Mr Giuliani and Ms Pick’s assertions."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/georgia-suitcase-video-ballots-trump-b1766363.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/georgia-suitcase-video-ballots-trump-b1766363.html)


Words actually mean things.  Sometimes a cigar is a cigar.  Nobody who knows anything about the process is claiming votes were counted while observers weren't present. You guys have been going on for two pages freaking out that batches of votes were counted after observers left, when the declaration has been that ballots were fed into a scanner in the ordinary course of business.  People that assume that people aren't stupid might note the distinction and apply Occam's razor. 

The Republicans who run the process in Georgia and who aren't freaked out by this declare that this was not anything weird, this was not vote-counters counting, but just grunts feeding ballots into a scanner (from a sealed case). 

So taking these guys at their word, what you would want to know about the process is "what does feeding the ballots into the scanner mean?" if it doesn't mean counting the ballots? 

We're going to learn, or we're going to be lied to. 

But since this is a normal process, when we get the indepth story on the Georgia election process, you're going to get a description something like votes are tallied by actual vote counters while they are being watched by actual observers.  Something like the ballots and signatures are matched and allocated, and the counting done and totals tallied by designated vote counters while being observed by actual observers, and that is what happened this evening in this district. 

After the counting is done, there's a ministerial task of feeding ballots into scanners, but that does not equate to counting votes, it's an archival process of scanning papers after the votes have already been counted.

So if that's what actually happens in the Georgia election process which the Republican overseers say is what happened, in discussing what this video shows a person would be inaccurate to say "counting is occurring without observers being present."  What you are being told is happening is, "Paper ballots are being fed into a scanner after the votes on them have been counted." [If this is correct, I would assume we would learn this is creating an archive via scanning without interpretation, so that you have the actual paper ballots but also a scanned record of those same paper ballots.]

Nothing is secret here.  It's all on 4 camera surveillance. 

Wrap your head around and discuss the distinction between "counting the votes on paper ballots under observation" and "feeding paper ballots into a scanner after they've been counted."

[Somebody may help to clarify that hey- you guys don't understand- those scanners don't count votes, they just create a record, like a fax machine.  The scanners are not vote-counting machines. ]


Anyway, something like that is what we're going to end up hearing and understanding if the Republicans who run the Georgia election process and understand are actually good Americans and aren't lying.  Sound fair?

Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DonaldD on December 04, 2020, 07:59:25 PM
A distinction without a difference. I understand people will quibble but our government had phone recordings of Trump campaign people. I know the details and how it can be spun the other way but what our government did to the Trump campaign and the way it did it vindicated everything Trump said.
No it's not, and no, it doesn't.

Would you say the same thing if some recordings were of Russians communicating with Democrats, that the 'government' was spying on Democrats?  Or if the recordings were of Russians phishing, say, Apple or Google employees, that the government was spying on those companies?  If a Russian agent's single call to an IBM employee was surveilled as part of a concerted effort to spy on that Russian agent, does that mean 'the government' was spying on IBM?

Of course not.  You know this.   
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 04, 2020, 08:03:44 PM
Wayward Son

"No, it isn't, because Biden won because of the votes he got."

The point is once cheating is determined often times there is no way to know for sure the exact extent to which it influenced things.

In this case the Democrats will insist that we just assume that the only votes that were fraudulent were the votes that we can prove were fraudulent even though they set up the system to make it almost impossible to prove voter fraud at all.

Like for Lance we just assume that his doping only added a few minutes to his time but since he won by much more than that it didn't actually affect the outcome. I have no idea about his margins of victory by the way but it's just an example. The point is some people like to give too much benefit of the doubt even when it's proven it isn't deserved. It's also interesting that even though now it's proven that Lance cheated he still won anyway. Maybe he was stripped of his titles or whatever but he still lives in a huge mansion and has a lot of money and fame and his foundation and got to enjoy decades of it before he found out. Maybe to some people it seems like in the end he didn't get away with it but to me it doesn't seem like that at all. Same thing with stealing elections. And Obama's unConstitutional executive orders like DACA. There is very little justice in this world.

I'll just leave the Russian collusion hoax alone I suppose. I can understand how people can see it differently and I appreciate that but people can just go round and round on it and we all have here before and it won't get anyone anywhere. Also, this may not be the thread for it except to note that the same type of thing is likely to happen with the issue of voter fraud. We'll all just go round and round again and even after the bombshells drop that won't really change anything.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DonaldD on December 04, 2020, 08:07:16 PM
Those dastardly Georgia Democrats, taking advantage of the system the Georgia Republicans set up to make it almost impossible to prove voter fraud at all.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: yossarian22c on December 04, 2020, 11:31:37 PM
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/politics/georgia-election-officials-show-frame-by-frame-what-really-happened-fulton-surveillance-video/T5M3PYIBYFHFFOD3CIB2ULDVDE/ (https://www.wsbtv.com/news/politics/georgia-election-officials-show-frame-by-frame-what-really-happened-fulton-surveillance-video/T5M3PYIBYFHFFOD3CIB2ULDVDE/)

Local news spends the entire day watching the video with law enforcement and the conclusion, no wrong doing.

Quote
  Gray looked not at just the short clip the Trump campaign shared, but the critical hours before and after that clip as well.
State election investigators have already spent hours analyzing the video showing what Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani said was suitcases being pulled from under a table.
They were, in fact, official, sealed ballot containers.
“We can show exactly when they were placed in there,” lead investigator Frances Watson said.
Watson said they weren’t mystery ballots that came from a mystery location.
Video taken hours before shows the table being brought into the room at 8:22 a.m. Nothing was underneath the table then.
At 10 p.m., with the room full of people, including official monitors and the media, video shows ballots that had already been opened but not counted placed in the boxes, sealed up and stored under the table.       
...
No magically-appearing ballots,” Gabriel Sterling with the Secretary of State’s office said. “These were ballots that were processed in front of the monitors, processed in front of the monitors and placed there in front of the monitors.”
So what about the time gap between when the media and observers left and then the observers returned about an hour later? Employees scanned ballots.
“These are just typical everyday election workers are just doing their jobs,” Sterling said.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: yossarian22c on December 04, 2020, 11:35:11 PM
If the conservatives are interested the local news shows the surveillance video in much higher quality than Trump’s team did. It’s absolutely clear those are official ballot crates not rolling suit cases.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DonaldD on December 04, 2020, 11:38:37 PM
But, but... "poll workers caught on camera removing election observers from the counting room and then taking out suitcases of ballots to be counted while those observers were not present.  Based on the length of time involved and the number of ballots that could have been processed in that time, it would be more than enough to overturn the margin of victory.  Even counting ballots in that circumstance is election fraud, let alone counting ballots from such a dubious source."

The election was clearly stolen, why are you ignoring the self-evident and obvious facts?

One has to wonder... when Giuliani drums up another scandal in 2 days' time, will they all be so easily convinced again?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: TheDeamon on December 04, 2020, 11:42:57 PM
Investigate this video and what they say happened.  If illegal actions were taken, prosecute those responsible.  I do not see any court being able to order a new election with the same people running.

Do you mean that there is no possible way for any court to do this, i.e. that there is simply no mechanism in the system to make it happen? Or do you mean that you simply predict that no one would have the will to do it?

Legal mechanism is likely to have two parts, 1) whatever state law provides for. 2) The United States Congress, during their joint session where electoral votes are counted, can invalidate the Electoral Votes from a state. Although the specifics of how the voting on that would work is a bit unclear to me personally. I suspect that a Democrat majority in the House(paired with the Senate being down 2 seats from Georgia--runoff election happens after) would assure the votes are validated however.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: yossarian22c on December 04, 2020, 11:55:13 PM
If the conservatives are interested the local news shows the surveillance video in much higher quality than Trump’s team did. It’s absolutely clear those are official ballot crates not rolling suit cases.

And in a matter of a few hours were able to show exactly when the ballots were placed under the table and that those ballots had been processed correctly. Why is 1 local news reporter more competent than Trump’s legal team that conservatives have funded to the tune of 170 million dollars? Could it be Trump is keeping the money for himself?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: TheDeamon on December 05, 2020, 12:04:16 AM
Which video is this? Are we talking about https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moddNvyr3To ?

Yes, people counting without observers and bringing in votes from an unknown source should be enough to invalidate that whole count in that whole... city district, city, county? -- how are votes grouped, is "county" really the smallest grouping of votes you guys have? Seriously, tens of thousands of votes all counted in the same place?

Depends on the state in question and how they have their jurisdictions setup. For most of the United States, votes are tabulated by the county the person is voting in.  For my state, it is duty of the county clerk's office(which is an elected position) with oversight by the Secretary of State(also elected) for my state. Not to be confused with the Federal level Secretary of State.

There are some places where things get weird for various other reasons, like New York City is comprised of multiple Counties (Boroughs), and Virginia for example has a number of cities organized as their own entity without being part of a county.

However, while the County may be responsible for both the tabulation of votes, as well as the setup and operation of the polling places, the smallest "grouping of votes" we have is the precinct level. For my county, with about 88,000 residents, we have 68 voting precincts, most of them share polling locations with at least one other neighboring precinct, but some exist on their own.

Voted ballots are placed in a locked metal canister(basically a strong box) at the precinct by the voter through a slot, this act is witnessed by a poll worker. Once the poll concludes accepting votes for the night, those strong boxes are brought back to the County Elections office by at least two of the poll workers, and the elections office is the only place those strong boxes are supposed to be able to be opened as the poll workers at the precinct don't have the means to open the box.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: TheDeamon on December 05, 2020, 12:13:26 AM
You were asked how vote counters were appointed. You said that they were appointed locally, usually by the DNC in large population areas.  I think vote counters work for the county board of election and are civil servant jobs, not appointed jobs.

They aren't "appointed jobs" but they are either hired employees of the County Clerk(elected), volunteers authorized by the Clerk. So if the Clerk happens to be selectively biased in who they choose to hire for partisan purposes, they can certainly slant things to a partisan end.

Quote
Now poll and vote watchers are appointed by the respective parties. I believe those are normally volunteer positions.

Different process involved there, and depending on the state in question, the poll watcher may not be appointed by any political party at all. Although having a party backing them likely helps with getting any relevant credentials to be allowed in.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: TheDeamon on December 05, 2020, 12:18:51 AM
I don't have much tolerance for this level of excuse-making.

I suggest you spend like literally 10 seconds to think of a solution, and you would probably come up with several. "They could all walk out"? Who, are we talking about the entire nation here all together deciding at the same time to 'filibuster' the election?

Even if watchers are not technically "required", why are they not *requested*, loudly, publicly, so that they show up if available?

. . .

That's with a minute's worth of thought. Perhaps to ensure an election is above suspicion, you should even use *gasp* two minutes of thought for it before dismissing it as an unsolvable problem.

Welcome to what many Conservatives have been asking for over the past 10 years in the United States. Our voting systems have improved in some ways after the fiasco that was 2000 in Florida. However, a LOT of the rest of it still operates like we're still in the 19th Century, and the Democrats are the ones that scream about doing anything to make the system more secure.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DonaldD on December 05, 2020, 08:05:16 AM
Welcome to what many Conservatives have been asking for over the past 10 years in the United States. Our voting systems have improved in some ways after the fiasco that was 2000 in Florida. However, a LOT of the rest of it still operates like we're still in the 19th Century, and the Democrats are the ones that scream about doing anything to make the system more secure.
There was no suggestion that what happened in Florida was voter fraud - but rather poor voting mechanisms.  And there were suggestions, without much evidence, that those poor mechanisms were tools for disenfranchisement.

Republicans have been on a tear for the past 10, 20, 30 years to extend voter suppression (sorry, reduce vote fraud) and that is what Democrats have been primarily resisting.  To use Florida in 2000 as an excuse to reduce access to voting is more than a little rich.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on December 05, 2020, 08:59:49 AM
So it looks like part of the evidence collected to date and shown to the Georgia Legislature involves what appears to be election fraud of a scale that could in fact have changed the result of election.  Specifically, poll workers caught on camera removing election observers from the counting room and then taking out suitcases of ballots to be counted while those observers were not present.  Based on the length of time involved and the number of ballots that could have been processed in that time, it would be more than enough to overturn the margin of victory.  Even counting ballots in that circumstance is election fraud, let alone counting ballots from such a dubious source.

K.  So I watched this evidence video.  With and without a Trump lawyer who specifically said she was not acting as a lawyer at the time (cute) explaining their version of events. 

It shows some election workers pulling out a box of ballots out from under a table and counting them.  That's it.  There are a bunch of assumptions going on with the conspiracy version (yes, it is a conspiracy theory, I'll get to that later). 

1.  Observers were asked to leave. 

2.  The ballots were not just normal ballots stored under the table. 

On one hand you have some affidavits (not checked) that say some lady with blonde hair and braids told people to leave.   That's it.  There is nothing that says that these were not just normal ballots being run through the machines. 

On the other hand, you have the statements from the workers there (well of COURSE they're going to lie, right?  That's exactly what a wife beater says when you ask them if they beat their wife).  Then you have the guy running the election for Fulton county, the chief investigator for the GA Sec of State (a Republican), and the guy he has running the election (a Republican). 

So we have two conflicting versions of events. 

1.  Nobody told observers and press to leave.  Press never did leave.  These were ballots that had already been checked and stored for counting. 

2.  Somebody told the observers to leave.  All the election workers in the counting room were in on a conspiracy to commit fraud.  They filled out 1000 to 10,000 absentee or mail in ballots.  They destroyed the 1,000 to 10,000 ballots they were replacing (otherwise the numbers of envelopes would not match the number of ballots), they hid the ballots under a table under the noses of observers and press.  The guy running the election for Fulton county was in on the conspiracy or is stupid (not mutually exclusive, more on that later).  The chief investigator for the GA Sec of State is in on it or stupid.  The guy running the entire election for the GA Sec of State is in on it or stupid (lotsa Deep State Never Trumpers in GA apparently).  The GA Sec of State is in on it or stupid.  The Governor of Georgia is in on it or incompetent.  And the fraud needs to be carried out while the people committing the fraud have media in the area and cameras pointed at them.  At the very least you need everybody counting votes on that floor to be in on the fraud and a bunch of other people to be stupid.  That's a conspiracy. 

If it is true, the evidence should be brought before the DA and judges, charges filed, trial, conviction, and whatever punishment applies to the individuals committing the fraud.  Probably imprisonment.  If found guilty and details involving the fraud come to light, the entire vote from the county should be discounted.  GA Legislators should figure something out for their electors, but they're probably pretty hamstrung on the law.  You gotta follow procedures. You can't make up the rules of the game as you go along. This isn't Calvinball.  That was the entire argument back Florida 2000.  Florida learned from that and I hope Georgia learns from this. 

It does seem, even though the GA Sec of State and his election people are backing the results, that they believe the guy, or people, or whatever, running the elections in Fulton County are incompetent.  But this has mostly to do with communication problems and working computers.  It has to do with speed, not accuracy. 

This stuff isn't new.  This conspiracy theory has been floating around for awhile.  Plenty of inaccuracy in it that displays the lack of knowledge of the procedure on the accusers.  It's been debunked, though apparently Rudy Giuliani thinks there is meat to it.  But apparently nothing good enough to bring to a DA or judge.  The Republicans on the Fulton county election board voted to invalidate the results, but only because the total number of votes changed every time there was a recount.  At the last recount there was like a 900 vote difference.  It points towards incompetency, but not towards conspiracy, fraud, or even enough votes to make a difference. 

Sorry, but to me, this is weak tea.  I'll say it again.  Infiltrate the dealer and find the supplier.   The people making the accusations should have been brought forward (the blonde lady spotter), 
the workers should have been brought forward.  The investigator and media on site should have been brought forward.  The observers should have been.  I havn't seen any of that.  I seen one lady who says she is a lawyer but not acting as one (real cute) and one guy running elections for the county who has answered all the questions the Republican members of the elections board asked of him. 

Oh, and by GA law, you don't NEED observers in the room when counting is being done.  They are allowed to be there, but if they leave the counting doesn't stop or insn't invalid.  That's
GA law.  If it's a bad one, that's something the GA General Assembly, Republican controlled, should be able to take care of.   

The whole thing is full of holes.  If you want the GA General Assembly or the GA Supreme Court to step in, you better do better homework.  This is the Kavanaugh hearing again.  It's another tribal thing.  I think some people are so desperate now to show that there was SOME FRAUD, and that it was possibly HUGE, that they'll grasp at anything.  Your video is weak tea.  The idea that all these Republicans involved are all Deep State Never Trumpers certainly fits with the insane theories coming from the White House for the last few years, but it's pretty weak too.  The desperation stinks.  I understand that crazy people are going to buy it, but when normally intelligent and thoughtful people start being sucked into the conspiracy theories because they're desperate to be right or desperate to win, it's pretty pathetic. 

What is especially sad for me is that I really wanted Loeffler and Perdue to win.  Or at least one of the.  I'm not keen on the Dems controlling both the Presidency and Congress.  But this conspiracy theory stuff could depress the R vote in Georgia.  And the Republican party will deserve it, for backing such nonsense.  Good job GOP.  The Trumpers will take the ship down with them. 
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on December 05, 2020, 11:59:45 AM
To me this is also shows Trump is not a Republican.  He is willing to burn down the turn out in GA, and hurt Republican's that have supported him in the past, just to try and make his flimsy point.  He does not want a truthful investigation, he wants the answer he wants.  And if you come back with anything else you are disloyal and must be gotten rid of.  I fully expect the Republicans to loose both of the senate seats because of this. And that will be 100% on Trump and his cronies.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: LetterRip on December 05, 2020, 12:03:19 PM
At least one of the current US democratic senators has said in the past she is interested in caucasing with the Republicans.  So the worries of some extreme liberal agenda being enabled is absurd.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: TheDeamon on December 05, 2020, 12:04:33 PM
Welcome to what many Conservatives have been asking for over the past 10 years in the United States. Our voting systems have improved in some ways after the fiasco that was 2000 in Florida. However, a LOT of the rest of it still operates like we're still in the 19th Century, and the Democrats are the ones that scream about doing anything to make the system more secure.
There was no suggestion that what happened in Florida was voter fraud - but rather poor voting mechanisms.  And there were suggestions, without much evidence, that those poor mechanisms were tools for disenfranchisement.

There is a reason I said "voting systems" in connection to 2000, and I'm glad you could remember what that reason is. Have a cookie in reward for your astute observation about something I wasn't claiming? The Florida problems in 2000 were not fraud, but they did reflect other problems involving our voting system which have been largely fixed since then, but did nothing about the security side of the situation.

Quote
Republicans have been on a tear for the past 10, 20, 30 years to extend voter suppression (sorry, reduce vote fraud) and that is what Democrats have been primarily resisting.  To use Florida in 2000 as an excuse to reduce access to voting is more than a little rich.

Nice painting with a broad brush. I'll agree that certain states which have Republican controlled governments have done some very fishy things. But the majority of Republican controlled states have done the more basic voting security measures and limited their activities to only that.

Voter ID laws should be non-controversial, my state is one of those Republican states who has it on their books now, has had it for years now. I'll agree fully that the antics of Texas, and a couple other states in regards to placing additional "special restrictions" on where those ID's can be obtained, and a number of other things associated with it is suspect, and can justifiably be screamed about. But to reiterate, the problem should not be the ID requirement, the problem is the manipulations of the process for getting those IDs. (That Voter ID also consistantly polls with better than 70% support across most demographic groups--even the minorities-- should also say something...But hey, Democrat operatives gotta knee-jerk and declare voter suppression at just the suggestion of an ID being needed)

But as you want to complain about entire groups being smeared by the bad actions of small groups, you really need to step up your game on making sure you're not doing the same in reverse.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DonaldD on December 05, 2020, 12:54:27 PM
Over the past 10 years, but especially since Shelby County v Holder, a number of states, both those previously requiring pre-clearance to change voting mechanisms and even states that were not previously so restricted, have implemented restrictive voting measures, including but not limited to the closure of polling sites, preferentially facilitating voting in certain counties, widespread purges of voter rolls, and yes, new strict voter ID requirements; I get why some like to ignore that voter ID requirements predominantly disenfranchise the poor and the less mobile, but that doesn't mean you'll convince everyone to ignore those issues; especially since in-person voting has shown to have negligible levels of fraud, so it is a solution that is presumably looking for a problem to solve, if we choose to ignore the true motivation, being selective voter disenfranchisement.

If Republicans in general have been focusing on correcting mechanisms outside of putative "security" and "fraud" issues, then they have been doing a fantastic job of hiding those efforts, as compared to the highly marketed voter disenfranchisement proposals which seem to be a basic platform of the modern Republican party.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on December 05, 2020, 12:54:51 PM
At least one of the current US democratic senators has said in the past she is interested in caucusing with the Republicans.  So the worries of some extreme liberal agenda being enabled is absurd.

Lol.  Sorry.  Which Democrat US Senator was that? 

I would certainly feel better about "some extreme liberal agenda being enabled" with a Republican majority in the senate.  I don't really know what an extreme liberal agenda is anyways.  Probably court packing, green new deals, student loan forgiveness, and an assault weapons ban.  The only thing I would see as particularly concerning is court packing, and I'm not even sure if that would get by.  I don't expect the Biden administration to start proposing "extreme liberal agendas", but it's all in the POV.  Nevertheless, I don't expect Biden to begin vetoing things that a Democratically controlled Congress passes.  So if a Democrat House and Senate pass court packing or a green new deal, whatever Biden feels about it, he's probably going to sign it into law anyways.  At that point he can just say, "it wasn't me.  That was Congress.".   
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: LetterRip on December 05, 2020, 03:07:42 PM
At least one of the current US democratic senators has said in the past she is interested in caucusing with the Republicans.  So the worries of some extreme liberal agenda being enabled is absurd.
JoLol.  Sorry.  Which Democrat US Senator was that? 

Can't find her name offhand.  Looks like it was Heitkamp who is no longer in the Senate (I had searched this awhile ago so hadn't realized she was no longer serving), so my mistake.  That said Kirsten Sinema, Joe Manchin and Jon Tester, vote more ideologically conservative than some Republicans.

Quote
I would certainly feel better about "some extreme liberal agenda being enabled" with a Republican majority in the senate.  I don't really know what an extreme liberal agenda is anyways.

There isn't one, but most Republicans I know seem to think that there is one.  3 Senate Democrats ideologically cluster with the Republicans.  Also Biden is fairly centrist.  So even if an extreme agenda existed even if both Georgia seats go Democrat it would be impossible to get such an agenda passed.  Biden wouldn't put such forth, and the senate wouldn't pass it.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on December 05, 2020, 03:40:33 PM
That said Kirsten Sinema, Joe Manchin and Jon Tester, vote more ideologically conservative than some Republicans.

I will allow Manchin.  I don't know about the others.  I don't think Joe Manchin is going to stand up to Chuck Shumer, Nancy Pelosi, and die Fraushaft after they get a "Green New Deal" through the House. One of the primary lessons I have taken from the Age of Orange is that the most motivated and involved voters/citizens are the craziest, and that American politicians in general are partisan cowards. 

Quote
Also Biden is fairly centrist.  So even if an extreme agenda existed even if both Georgia seats go Democrat it would be impossible to get such an agenda passed.  Biden wouldn't put such forth, and the senate wouldn't pass it.

I understand your theory, but I oppose it, for the above reasons.  I don't believe that a handful of Democrat Senators will oppose their party leadership, and I don't believe that Biden will say no either.  "Who am I to stand in the way of the will of the people" will be the watchword.  I find it more likely that the three you mention will use their position to gain leverage.  My take is that McCain and Romney are rare birds.  That's my theory at least. 
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: LetterRip on December 05, 2020, 04:08:46 PM
Democrats frequently go against party leadership.  So while it is rare for Republicans it is common for Democrats.

Also Biden doesn't have to oppose anything since anything he wouldn't be willing to sign he can use soft power to make sure it never gets brought to a vote or a majority in at least one house.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: yossarian22c on December 05, 2020, 08:25:35 PM
Sydney Powell and Rudy Giuliani put out a deliberately false narrative. My BS o'meter should have spiked harder when Powell said they hadn't been able to analyze enough of the video to see when the "suitcases" (a.k.a. official ballot storage) had been placed under the table. They also used a low res version of the video so its unclear that the boxes they are getting the ballots from are the official ballot crates. They presented this evidence in the most public way they knew how. It only took a local reporter about 5 hours to find the high resolution video, identify when the crates were placed under the table (hint about 10 minutes before they were taken out), and to get the full story about what happened from state law enforcement and the election officials.

As a result of them rushing out their "evidence," a low res video with a deceptive narrative had the following consequences:
1) Further reduces faith in the elections, harming democracy.
2) Created a very dangerous situation for the 2 women on the video. YouTube comments were calling for them to be executed.

Rushing this out, with a deliberate spun narrative and without showing when the crates were put under the table created a really dangerous situation for two low wage/volunteer poll workers. How do the conservatives here feel about Trump's team being this disingenuous and loose with the truth? Do you feel lied to? Are you angered they would knowingly put people in harms way to make a political point? Are you angered they went public without knowing what really happened, or that they knew what happened but just didn't care?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on December 05, 2020, 09:39:24 PM
Of course not, not when one of Trump's legal team called for Krebs to be shot and drawn and quartered. The ends justify the means.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DonaldD on December 05, 2020, 09:55:00 PM
As a result of them rushing out their "evidence," a low res video with a deceptive narrative had the following consequences
I'd just like to point out that the term "rushing out" gives the impression that the Republican legal brain trust released this information without full knowledge of the context, because they didn't spend the required time to analyze it; whereas I think it is pretty clear that they knew exactly what they were doing, and that they were purposefully misleading the public with the narrative.

What I'm most confused about is all those people who were initially characterizing this latest release of misinformation as not just suspicious but actually unambiguous, concrete evidence of fraud - a smoking gun, criminal activity even - and then taking that as their jumping off point.  Where'd they go?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DonaldD on December 06, 2020, 09:23:43 AM
More on the Sydney Powell Georgia case - here is an analysis, submitted to the court (https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.284055/gov.uscourts.gand.284055.60.0_2.pdf), of the experts referenced by Powell's team in support of their fraud allegations.

It basically comes down to "Person X" is not qualified, and "fails to disclose methods / does not use generally accepted methodologies / rests entirely on speculation".

As well, Powell's team submitted altered documents to the court (https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.284055/gov.uscourts.gand.284055.61.0_1.pdf), and made false statements about said documents:

Quote
Plaintiffs erroneously claim that both the Certificate and a test report signed by Michael Walker were “undated” and have attached altered documents that have been cropped to remove the dates of the documents. See Compl., ¶12 and Exhibits 5 and 6 thereto. A correct copy of the Certificate showing the date of August 9,

It seems like a cottage industry has sprung up around disputing the election, designed primarily to make names for a certain kind of charlatan in the quack-o-sphere and to remove dead presidents from the wallets of desperate Trump supporters.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: wmLambert on December 06, 2020, 07:12:40 PM
“…it seems to me that if it was clear that there was voter fraud and the result of the election was doubtful I would personally want the result to be delayed rather than kept on time.” But “clear” is the problem. The evidence is substantial, but to the purposefully blind - video and first-person testimony is never enough. Forensic evidence is compelling but ignored.

“Just because it happened in one state does not mean all of the other states can be questioned.” Yes, it does mean that. The connection between battleground states has also been demonstrated. These incidents were not coincidental. They were synchronized out of necessity.

“You have not proved anything, at least legally.  You have given some evidence, that is mostly disputed.” On the contrary, few dispute the witnesses who documented the voting crimes. Instead, the word “crime” is replaced  by “irregularity.”

“Why did it take 1 month for Trump's dream team of lawyers to get around to checking up on what to date is the best evidence we've seen so far?” Perhaps because the proceedings are civil and not criminal? Those seeking investigation are routinely denied for lack of standing, and have no authority for subpoenas or opening any closed books.

“I think a judge should order the logs of the tabulation machine in question to be examined and made public.” Except that the first-hand eye witnesses state unequivocally that Chavez wanted a product that can withstand an audit.

“I think it was live streamed. It was in a lot of places, not 100% sure about Georgia.” That particular video was from the closed-circuit system at the Arena. How it was acquired would probably make a good movie.

“…Georgia Republican officials have already disputed the narrative to the video.”  And the disputers have already been shown to be incorrect.

“Let's hope the message gets out as people have claimed to identify one of the women in the video. Hope she has somewhere safe to bunker down until this is resolved.” Ruby Freeman was identified, and may fear prosecution. She may want to give up who was responsible for the criminal aspects.

“…in districts that are heavily DNC, they may all have been appointed under the supervision of the DNC and vice versa for the RNC.  The big fraud "advantage" between the parties favors the DNC because their voters tend to be highly concentrated in the largest districts in the US.” Historically, with the history of vote-scamming for the past fifty years, Democrat strongholds like Dade County, FL, or Chicago, IL, regularly registered die-hard Democrats as GOP poll watchers, so there were no real way to check their cheating.

“Does it count as fraud if a party does not send watchers?” No - what happens is that individuals volunteer, and the Election officials select which ones to admit, with no guaranteed link to any party. If twenty GOP volunteers were refused because false-flag volunteers were chosen first, what recourse is there? All one needs is a piece of paper that names their party allegiance. Scammers lie.

“You're accepting it as such purely based on the team you think it benefits.” In reality, there is common sense and Occam’s Razor. How does a pile of hundreds of ballots be fed into a machine without each one being vetted? Why vet ballots, then put them in suitcases under a table to be entered en masse after the poll watchers are locked out and windows boarded up? If there is an operable standard there, it cannot stand.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on December 06, 2020, 07:24:38 PM
You have not read any of the refutations have you?  Just the talking points OAN and NewMax keep repeating. The is no connection between the states.

If they have all of this evidence, why not present it to a judge?  Why just make it public? Go to court with it? Is it because they are 1-45 or so in court cases where  the evidence can be reviewd? A

And many dispute the "eye witnesses" because they are wrong.

Again, if they have all of this evidence, present it to a judge and claim fraud. 
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on December 06, 2020, 07:54:44 PM
You keep saying Occam's Razor, but which is simpler?  A multi state, multi country, years long plot involving dozens of judges, Governors, Secretary of  States, thousands of poll works, all involved, or that Trump just lost? Which is simpler?  Trump was down in the polls for months before the election, he lost the popular vote, he had huge negatives, but it is not simple that he just lost the election?

It seems to me that logically, Trump should just admit he lost. That is the simplest explanation for what happened.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: yossarian22c on December 06, 2020, 11:07:50 PM
“…Georgia Republican officials have already disputed the narrative to the video.”  And the disputers have already been shown to be incorrect.

Shown to be incorrect how? I linked to the video where the local news watched the video with law enforcement investigators who tracked the ballots the whole time and confirmed there was no illegality.

The argument so far has so far been:
There is fraud - look at this low res edited video with a misleading narrative.
There is not fraud - look at a fuller high resolution version with commentary by the relevant law enforcement.
Nuh uh.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 07, 2020, 02:19:50 AM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pollster-says-that-joe-bidens-victory-defied-crucial-metrics/ar-BB1bH4jO?ocid=uxbndlbing

"Basham also touched on mail-in and absentee ballots, which 65million Americans used to vote this election.

He discussed a 'historically low ballot rejection rate for absentee and mail-in ballots.'

'Rejection rates, which in the primaries earlier this year were well into the double-digits and which historically have often been very, very high in these key swing states, or at least in the key swing counties, we're seeing rejection rates of less than 1%, often very close to to zero,' said Basham.

'Given the increase in absentee balloting and the lack of experience that most of the new voters and those doing the counting would have with those ballots, it is implausible, to put it politely, that that figure would be as low as it was."

-----------------------------------------------------------

Things that make you go "Hmmm..."

Also, is it true that millions of people split their votes and voted for Biden at the top and Republicans more locally? That seems off. Sure a lot of people do it but this many?

I'm not convinced yet of the massive voter fraud in Georgia but if that turns out to be true I completely disagree with the idea that it shouldn't matter that much if it wasn't enough to change the result and it doesn't affect other states. It affects everything. It would be an unprecedented paradigm shift.

It would mean that everything we've been told by the Democrats has been a lie. And if that happened in Georgia and they got away with it this long it means that in more heavily Democrat strongholds they would never get caught at all.

Going back to Lance Armstrong, one point I was trying to make was that when someone is caught cheating it's often impossible to precisely quantify how much that affected the results because you can bet they weren't caught cheating every time they cheated and in all the ways they cheated. Like someone cheating at cards. So you're playing all night and they are clearing everyone out and then one hand you catch them with a card up their sleeve. Do you just say well he loses that hand? Do you say we can't assume he cheated the whole time? We can't assume he cheated in other places on other days in other ways? It doesn't work that way. If the scheme alleged in Georgia actually happened we have to assume that it happened elsewhere as well. That Democrats would so casually brush off a crime of that magnitude against the faith in our election process is telling in and of itself. I see a lot who wouldn't brush it off and understand it would be an earthshaking event and that's good. It would be.

I still doubt it happened though. Perhaps mostly because I just don't want to get my hopes up.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DonaldD on December 07, 2020, 07:29:22 AM
Also, is it true that millions of people split their votes and voted for Biden at the top and Republicans more locally? That seems off. Sure a lot of people do it but this many?
You underestimate just how disliked Trump has made himself, and how terrible he is at actually being president. Pretending to support policies and being the guy who will deliver SCOTUS justices only gets you so far once you've already had the chance to choose 3 justices.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: LetterRip on December 07, 2020, 09:07:32 AM
According to Pete he mailed he ballot in 3 days before the election and it didn't arrive in time to be counted.  If that was common then there were probably a huge number of ballots not counted in Georgia due to not being delivered in time.


So the low rejection rate is likely inexperienced  voters simply didn't get their ballots in the mail to arrive in time to be counted due to the substantial delays in delivery.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on December 07, 2020, 09:08:45 AM
I wonder why that happened? It couldn't be that the head of the USPS was trying to make that happen would it?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: yossarian22c on December 07, 2020, 09:27:49 AM
According to Pete he mailed he ballot in 3 days before the election and it didn't arrive in time to be counted.  If that was common then there were probably a huge number of ballots not counted in Georgia due to not being delivered in time.


So the low rejection rate is likely inexperienced  voters simply didn't get their ballots in the mail to arrive in time to be counted due to the substantial delays in delivery.

Combine that with the fact that there were stories for months leading up to the election about the absentee ballot rejection rate. So maybe voters were extra careful filling them out knowing that Trump was going to challenge everything.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: wmLambert on December 07, 2020, 12:08:08 PM
...You underestimate just how disliked Trump has made himself, and how terrible he is at actually being president. Pretending to support policies and being the guy who will deliver SCOTUS justices only gets you so far once you've already had the chance to choose 3 justices.

You ignore how beloved Trump is. His voting numbers is the highest of any sitting President ever. He beat Obama and any others substantially. In every other place but the disputed battleground states he won far more handily than expected, with coattails. No losses in the House. Every single House election went to the GOP. His numbers among Blacks and Latinos also surged far above past percentages. Only in the few disputed states run by Democrats was there a Biden presence. (He had no enthusiastic support.) It was in the states the Democrats needed, that the counting was stopped (Never done before) but after Trump's lead was far higher than anticipated, so that even Democrat-heavy votes from mail-in ballots couldn't catch up. Then the affidavits started coming in telling how ballots were illegally treated. Each state, one at a time - but together, neh?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: yossarian22c on December 07, 2020, 12:29:05 PM
...You underestimate just how disliked Trump has made himself, and how terrible he is at actually being president. Pretending to support policies and being the guy who will deliver SCOTUS justices only gets you so far once you've already had the chance to choose 3 justices.

You ignore how beloved Trump is.

I really don't, he's so beloved that his voters are giving him hundreds of millions of dollars to not fight the election results. He's so beloved we've had a somewhat serious conversation about what him declaring martial law and trying to invalidate the election would look like. Trump is a con man, I suppose a good one because he's been able to convince 50 million people without any substantial evidence that the election was stolen from him. But what you don't understand is that for every 10 voters who bought his con 11 voters were absolutely repulsed by having that fraud run our country.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DonaldD on December 07, 2020, 12:33:22 PM
You ignore how beloved Trump is.
No, not really - I freely admit he has a rabid base, and he motivated huge numbers to vote for his re-election.

His problem is that he is also incredibly hated by even more people, and he motivated them to come out and vote against him in even greater record numbers.  He lost the popular vote by more than 7 million. 

Quote
In every other place but the disputed battleground states he won far more handily than expected
Do show your math.  Biden was projected to win the national vote by about 55% to 45%, and actually won by about 52.5% to 47.5%.  Whereas in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, where he was projected to win in each state with between 52% and 53.7%, he won each of those states with less than 51% - the exact opposite of your claim.

Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 07, 2020, 12:48:00 PM
Quote
His voting numbers is the highest of any sitting President ever. He beat Obama and any others substantially.

Let's see the numbers if we just ignore the battleground states you're disputing. Let's get the data down on the non-disputed states, okay?
I'm getting the numbers from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election, putting them in an Excel and removing the numbers from ALL the states you're disputing. I'm removing the tally from Wisconcin, Michigan, Georgia, Nevada AND Arizona (are you disputing Arizona? not sure, removing it just in case).

WITHOUT any votes from those states, Biden has 67,128,178 million votes, and Trump has 61,113,791 votes,

Got that? Without the disputed states, Biden still has a 6 million votes lead over Trump. Without counting five whole states, Biden still had a bigger number of votes than Trump had in 2016. Counting the portion of the country YOU yourself are NOT disputing, Biden had a vast vast lead in the popular vote, and greater vote numbers than any sitting president had in the whole country, and greater numbers than either Hillary Clinton (and certainly Trump) had in the whole country in 2016.

It's as if, simply, there was a bigger turnout in general in 2020, than in 2016. Fancy that.

---

Let's move on.

Trump won several of the "battleground" states (states described as "tossups" in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election), like North Carolina and Florida and Ohio and Texas.

You aren't speaking anything about them, nor finding supposed "irregularities" there, because Trump *won* them.

You'll of course claim it's the other way around, that Trump won them before everything went smoothly, but of course it's BLATANTLY the other way around -- you're disputing the elections in every "battleground state" he lost ONLY because he lost them, same way that you're not disputing the election in every "battleground state" he won ONLY because he won it.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: wmLambert on December 07, 2020, 06:19:59 PM
...you're disputing the elections in every "battleground state" he lost ONLY because he lost them, same way that you're not disputing the election in every "battleground state" he won ONLY because he won it.

Duh! The vote-scamming is in states run by Democrats, or RINO never-Trumpers.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Seriati on December 07, 2020, 06:20:38 PM
Got that? Without the disputed states, Biden still has a 6 million votes lead over Trump. Without counting five whole states, Biden still had a bigger number of votes than Trump had in 2016.

***

It's as if, simply, there was a bigger turnout in general in 2020, than in 2016. Fancy that.

It is "as if" there was a bigger turnout in 2020.  Of course, it's also "as if" the turn out was remarkable on a number of factors.  Take CA - for example - CA's percentage of eligible voters registered to vote has been stable for over 2 decades at just under 75%.  Older link for this point.  https://www.ppic.org/publication/voter-participation-in-california/ (https://www.ppic.org/publication/voter-participation-in-california/)  While there were slight increases in Obama's second term vote (registrations increased a bit faster than eligible voters) and in the election Hilary lost, even historic levels of excitement in CA about those candidates only moved registration up to 76% for Obama's second term and 78% for Hillary's loss.  Interestingly, for what may be the only time in CA history, the mid terms in 2018 saw an increase in total registrations and a tiny bump in registered voter percentage.  Of course that was the first election where CA permitted voter harvesting to occur, which resulting in a large number of anti-historical changes in election results that flipped multiple majority Republican districts to the Democrats (many of which reversed in 2020 when both sides were prepared for the practice... hmm...). 

So did we get this year?  A stunning 83% of eligible voters were registered.  It looks like CA's eligible voter population declined between 2018 and 2020 (25.2 m to 25.1 million), yet total registrations increased from 19.7 m to 20.9 m.  That's a stunning difference.  How did it translate into voting?

Well 14.6 m voted in 2016 (that registration increase in 2018 only led to 12.7 m votes 64.5% registered voter turn out (which was fully 5 m more votes than in the 2014 mid terms - which themselves were incredibly low in CA 42% of registered voters). CA midterms vary to a greater extent than presidential election years, but both those numbers were off on opposite ends of the scale (usually 45-60%).

According to your link CA had 17.495 m voters in 2020.  That's 83% of registered voters.  To find turn out numbers that high you have to go back to the 60's and before.  Literally, half a decade back in a era of a completely different civic ethic to find turn out like that.  As far as raw turnout?  The highest recent total was Hillary v. Trump 14.6 m (75% registered voter turn out), before that?  Barack Obama's first term - where voters believed they were casting a historic vote for America's first black president, got to 13.7 m (which was a whopping 79.4 percent of registered voters).  That was a year that saw an increase of almost 2 million registered voters, it was a historic year.  Yet it was only 1.2 million more voters than the prior Presidential election (vote increase was less than registration increase, which is massively flipped this time).  Hillary's election year was also a historic vote, for the first female President, and it saw an increase in registrations of 1.2 million over the prior Presidential election and 1.4 million more votes.  Yet this year, we saw 1.5 million more new registrations and nearly 3 million more votes than in Hillary's election year.  Population increases have not kept pace, and do not explain this.

Is it proof of anything?  No.  But many of you are too good at statistics not to see issues with this.  What does it mean that this election is an improbable statistical outlier?  And that registrations managed a stunning jump even though you'd think the well might be dry after 2 of the last 3 elections were historic "firsts" elections that themselves had already increased voter interest (and the eligible voter population had decreased).  The voting totals managed an even more stunning jump. 

It means that 70% of eligible adults voted in CA.  That's improbably bigger than the 58.7% that voted in the election with a chance to elect the first female President.  That's improbably bigger than the 59.22% that voted in the election of the country's first black president (a speaker that literally inspired people to swoon), or the 55.47% that showed up to give him a second term.  Unless I'm mistaken one has to go back to 1940 to find a greater percentage of the CA population voting.  You may remember that election from your history books, Roosevelt was elected to an unprecedented 3rd term not least because a certain very nasty group in Europe had begun WWII.  https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2018-general/sov/04-historical-voter-reg-participation.pdf (https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2018-general/sov/04-historical-voter-reg-participation.pdf)

Does it it look like a scam?  It does.  I mean if you want to add millions of votes and are worried that people might look at that percentage of registered voters number and think it's too far off to be legitimate what do you do?  Well you have to register more people.  If you wanted to add say, 1.5 million votes for Biden to the national total, what would you have to do?  You'd have to make sure you added enough registrations that you could hit your target of no more than 75% registered voter turn out.  So if you start with Hilary's number of 8.75 m, and assume you can kick out the green and independent choices and that Trump isn't getting any more votes, then you've got 9.75 m for Biden and 4.5 million for Trump.    Then you add in the 1.5 and get to 11.25 million for Biden and 4.5 million for Trump, that's 15.75 m (which is a "healthy" increase over the last election) and you divide that by 75% and you'd get a need for 21 million registered voters.  So CA ended up with 20.9 million registered voters.  https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-likely-voters/ (https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-likely-voters/)

So why would we end up with an improbable 83% turn out?  Well Trump got 1.55 million more votes than he did in 2016.  Remove those votes and you get pretty darn close to that 75% turn out for registered voters.  Remove those votes and you end up with only 63.5% turn out for eligible voters.  Numbers that are still exceptional but that can be beat in the 70's and are much closer to the largest recent elections (which are around 59%).

To be fair, adding in 1.5 million votes would take a very coordinated effort, and it wouldn't matter which "team" did it against this fact pattern.  We also have a roughly 20% voter turnout increase nationwide, which aligns roughly with the CA increase (ignoring historical differences that should have resulted in a difference in CA).  But a state like FL for example didn't see such a large jump in voter turn out, they got to 77% (versus 75% in the Hillary-Trump and first Obama elections, or versus their most recent record of 83% for Clinton in 92).   So what are we left with?  Did ballot harvesting cause this much of an increase?  Maybe.  Was it it really just super passion about Trump?  Maybe, but then it's interesting that Trump votes increased so much in CA as well (slightly higher rate of increase than the pro-Biden vote).  Did coordinated scams cause it?  Possibly, but absent an audit of who the nearly 3 million new voters were (and possibly a need to go back further) not clear how it would ever be proven.   Did we really a 20% increase in voting totals, or did it just seem "as if" we had such an increase in a system where we opened the floodgates to fraud through mail-in ballots?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 07, 2020, 07:51:35 PM
At this point Seriati, you're just gish-galloping, right? Deliberately making long confusing arguments in 9 paragraphs that you could have done in 3 lines, but you're not making them in 3 lines, because everyone would see how ridiculous they'd look.

Here's the TLDR (3 lines worth) of your comment for anyone who couldn't bother to follow it: You claim that ALL 50 the states' election numbers are fraudulent. Hardline-red-states and hardline-blue-states, supposedly they all faked their numbers so that it *looked* as if turnout was significantly higher across the nation, even in states that weren't battleground states at all. They increased both Biden's and Trump's numbers in comparative amounts, just so that it *looked* as if turnout was higher, as it would be suspicious if Trump's numbers remained the same while only Biden's increased.

They supposedly did fraud in favour of both Biden & Trump across all 50 states, so that their additional fraud in the battleground states in favour of Biden wouldn't... look out-of-place. (and yet wmLambert's very argument was that it was indeed supposedly out of place, and Trump's own argument is that "I got more votes than in 2016, so how could I lose, am bad at logic, waah can my moron voters please go and harass people who aren't giving me the presidency?")

I no longer believe you believe anything you say. wmLamber does believe the things he says, because he clearly has some mental illness -- but *you*, no, I don't believe that *you* believe any of this crap. I think you're purposefully being dishonest, and purposefully spreading lies and confusion to make "your side" look as if they're not the villains of the story that they are.

And you add your "maybe"s at the end, to cover your ass, as if saying that "something looks like a scam" (when you don't believe it does) makes it all the better, when your end motivation is to obfuscate and confuse rather than clarify and enlighten.

Quote
We also have a roughly 20% voter turnout increase nationwide, which aligns roughly with the CA increase (ignoring historical differences that should have resulted in a difference in CA).  But a state like FL for example didn't see such a large jump in voter turn out,

2016 Florida votes: 4,504,975 Clinton - 4,617,886 Trump
2020 Florida votes: 5,297,045 Biden - 5,668,731 Trump

5,297,045 / 4,504,975 = an increase of 17% for the Democratic ticket in Florida
5,668,731 / 4,617,886 = an increase of 22% for the Republican ticket in Florida

Where did you get there wasn't a large jump in voter turn out in Florida?

But oh, look, wmLambert liked your post, your lies are feeding his delusion and you don't care about that. Cheers, mate.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: wmLambert on December 07, 2020, 08:13:17 PM
At this point Seriati, you're just gish-galloping, right? Deliberately making long confusing arguments in 9 paragraphs that you could have done in 3 lines, but you're not making them in 3 lines, because everyone would see how ridiculous they'd look.

Here's the TLDR (3 lines worth) of your comment for anyone who couldn't bother to follow it: You claim that ALL 50 the states' election numbers are fraudulent. Hardline-red-states and hardline-blue-states, supposedly they all faked their numbers so that it *looked* as if turnout was significantly higher across the nation, even in states that weren't battleground states at all. They increased both Biden's and Trump's numbers in comparative amounts, just so that it *looked* as if turnout was higher, as it would be suspicious if Trump's numbers remained the same while only Biden's increased.

They supposedly did fraud in favour of both Biden & Trump across all 50 states, so that their additional fraud in the battleground states in favour of Biden wouldn't... look out-of-place. (and yet wmLambert's very argument was that it was indeed supposedly out of place, and Trump's own argument is that "I got more votes than in 2016, so how could I lose, am bad at logic, waah can my moron voters please go and harass people who aren't giving me the presidency?")

I no longer believe you believe anything you say. wmLamber does believe the things he says, because he clearly has some mental illness -- but *you*, no, I don't believe that *you* believe any of this crap. I think you're purposefully being dishonest, and purposefully spreading lies and confusion to make "your side" look as if they're not the villains of the story that they are.

And you add your "maybe"s at the end, to cover your ass, as if saying that "something looks like a scam" (when you don't believe it does) makes it all the better, when your end motivation is to obfuscate and confuse rather than clarify and enlighten.

Quote
We also have a roughly 20% voter turnout increase nationwide, which aligns roughly with the CA increase (ignoring historical differences that should have resulted in a difference in CA).  But a state like FL for example didn't see such a large jump in voter turn out,

2016 Florida votes: 4,504,975 Clinton - 4,617,886 Trump
2020 Florida votes: 5,297,045 Biden - 5,668,731 Trump

5,297,045 / 4,504,975 = an increase of 17% for the Democratic ticket in Florida
5,668,731 / 4,617,886 = an increase of 22% for the Republican ticket in Florida

Where did you get there wasn't a large jump in voter turn out in Florida?

But oh, look, wmLambert liked your post, your lies are feeding his delusion and you don't care about that. Cheers, mate.

I am not insane, and Seriati made valid points backed up by real numbers and logic. Statisticians I have heard agree with him - not with you. Your paraphrasing of his presentation is lame. Perhaps you might try again?

Look, Biden is a lost cause. Dementia, inability to speak coherently, and a history of plagiarism and lying. He was hidden away to protect his image. The MSM protected him, shrouding him in bubble-wrap. Their toughest questions were about the flavor of ice cream he purchased. Nothing about money laundering and his son's child porn on his lap top. He never had enthusiasm, and the Democrat image-makers pretended the country was just against Trump, regardless of Biden. Doesn't work. Trump won in every category. His success in his governance is undeniable. Best in history. There is literally nothing there to hang a Democrat blue wave upon - except cheating.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 07, 2020, 09:10:24 PM
Look, Biden is a lost cause. Dementia, inability to speak coherently, and a history of plagiarism and lying. He was hidden away to protect his image. The MSM protected him, shrouding him in bubble-wrap. Their toughest questions were about the flavor of ice cream he purchased. Nothing about money laundering and his son's child porn on his lap top. He never had enthusiasm, and the Democrat image-makers pretended the country was just against Trump, regardless of Biden. Doesn't work. Trump won in every category. His success in his governance is undeniable. Best in history. There is literally nothing there to hang a Democrat blue wave upon - except cheating.

Well, with such an argument, one wonders why you even need elections. The United States government should just ask wmLambert who'll be the winner in each election, then put that guy in the presidency. Since it's so clear as that that you don't need to bother with the whole voting and counting thing. /s
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: wmLambert on December 07, 2020, 09:25:55 PM
Look, Biden is a lost cause. Dementia, inability to speak coherently, and a history of plagiarism and lying. He was hidden away to protect his image. The MSM protected him, shrouding him in bubble-wrap. Their toughest questions were about the flavor of ice cream he purchased. Nothing about money laundering and his son's child porn on his lap top. He never had enthusiasm, and the Democrat image-makers pretended the country was just against Trump, regardless of Biden. Doesn't work. Trump won in every category. His success in his governance is undeniable. Best in history. There is literally nothing there to hang a Democrat blue wave upon - except cheating.

Well, with such an argument, one wonders why you even need elections. The United States government should just ask wmLambert who'll be the winner in each election, then put that guy in the presidency. Since it's so clear as that that you don't need to bother with the whole voting and counting thing. /s

Except for the fact you ignore. Trump won in a landslide and the Democrats cheated. Thousands of affidavits you are ignoring. That is not me. That is you ignoring fact, and calling it ignorance or lies. If the Swamp coup can be undone, what will you do if Trump is sworn in for a second term? Will you join AntiFa and loot, pillage, and burn? Will you resign from bring cannon fodder for the Democrats - or continue on?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 07, 2020, 09:41:48 PM
Well, with such an argument, one wonders why you even need elections. The United States government should just ask wmLambert who'll be the winner in each election, then put that guy in the presidency. Since it's so clear as that that you don't need to bother with the whole voting and counting thing. /s

Except for the fact you ignore. Trump won in a landslide and the Democrats cheated. Thousands of affidavits you are ignoring. That is not me. That is you ignoring fact, and calling it ignorance or lies.

Trump didn't win, he lost badly and clearly, both the popular and the electoral vote. It's not whether I'm ignoring the "affidavits" that matters, because it's actually every single court that looked at them which decided they should be dimissed as non-credible or irrelevant. The same will happen if SCOTUS takes up the case.

Quote
If the Swamp coup can be undone, what will you do if Trump is sworn in for a second term? Will you join AntiFa and loot, pillage, and burn? Will you resign from bring cannon fodder for the Democrats - or continue on?

I'm not an American, and I don't live in the United States, so my life will largely continue as is either way, regardless of what happens in the United States.

What I'm offering to do (as I've done before) is to put my money where my mouth is and *bet* with you.

If Trump gets sworn in for a 2nd term (in January 2021, NOT four years later), I offer to give you 1000 USD (to either you personally or a charity of your choice). In return, if Trump doesn't get sworn in, you'll have to paypal me 1 USD.

Do you take the bet? The odds I'm offering are literally 1000:1. That's the level of my certainty here.

Conditions and Terms:
-If both Trump & Biden get "sworn in" at different ceremonies, for the purposes of the bet, you win the bet only if Trump is still occupying the White House in February 1st, 2021, and I win the bet if Biden is occupying the White House at that date.
-I'll accept TheDeamon (who was btw a Trump voter) to be the arbiter of the bet if there's any dispute on its outcome on February the 1st, 2021.

Do you accept the bet?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: TheDeamon on December 07, 2020, 09:52:45 PM
WITHOUT any votes from those states, Biden has 67,128,178 million votes, and Trump has 61,113,791 votes,

Got that? Without the disputed states, Biden still has a 6 million votes lead over Trump. Without counting five whole states, Biden still had a bigger number of votes than Trump had in 2016. Counting the portion of the country YOU yourself are NOT disputing, Biden had a vast vast lead in the popular vote, and greater vote numbers than any sitting president had in the whole country, and greater numbers than either Hillary Clinton (and certainly Trump) had in the whole country in 2016.

With the disputed vote totals, as presently reported, but minus California and New York the vote tally becomes:
Biden 81,271,129 votes total - 11,109,764 (CA) - 5,244,006 (NY) = 64,917,359 votes
Trump 74,209,290 votes total - 6,005,961 (CA) - 3,251,230 (NY) = 64,952,099 votes (Trump win -- and still an improvement over his 2016 numbers)

It's amazing what can be done when numbers gets thrown around just to throw numbers around.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 07, 2020, 10:10:02 PM
Quote
With the disputed vote totals, as presently reported, but minus California and New York the vote tally becomes:
Biden 81,271,129 votes total - 11,109,764 (CA) - 5,244,006 (NY) = 64,917,359 votes
Trump 74,209,290 votes total - 6,005,961 (CA) - 3,251,230 (NY) = 64,952,099 votes (Trump win -- and still an improvement over his 2016 numbers)

Well, TheDeamon, I agree with you that Trump would have won if California & New York didn't vote, not just in the popular but also the electoral vote (Trump would still have 232 electoral votes, but Biden would only have 222), so am not sure what your point there was.

What I was doing was removing all the "disputed" states where supposedly Democrats cheated -- and it showed that Biden still had more votes than any sitting president in history, the thing that not I but rather wmLambert claimed for Trump as supposed proof that Trump must have therefore won. It's by his logic that this proves that then it was Biden that must have won.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: wmLambert on December 07, 2020, 10:31:07 PM
With the disputed vote totals, as presently reported, but minus California and New...removing all the "disputed" states where supposedly Democrats cheated -- and it showed that Biden still had more votes than any sitting president in history, the thing that not I but rather wmLambert claimed for Trump as supposed proof that Trump must have therefore won. It's by his logic that this proves that then it was Biden that must have won.

You still don't get it. Trump had enthusiasm and more minority percentage of votes than anyone expected. He was running ahead everywhere, including California if you can believe it. If the Dominion system took away so many Trump votes and gave them to Biden, then that is the crux of the problem. The demographics in Florida were solidly for Trump, but that is a GOP-run state where the vote was not rigged for Biden, and didn't use Dominion systems. What would have happened to Florida's numbers if Dominion gave Biden 26% more votes than he deserved, while taking them away from Trump? I give Sidney Powell great credit for her honesty and courage to do what is right. She said the Dominion/Smartmatic system added 35,000 votes down ballot to Democrat candidates - but Biden had no coattails and Pelosi lost every vote in the House. How can you wrap your mind around unbelievable results? I tend to believe her and not those the affidavits said were scamming.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: wmLambert on December 07, 2020, 11:10:16 PM
I note that the Michigan judge who threw out the Sidney Powell lawsuit is a real Left-wing activist: https://bigleaguepolitics.com/federal-judge-who-dismissed-sidney-powells-michigan-lawsuit-is-far-left-anti-cop-pro-affirmative-action-obama-appointee/

Powell mentioned that the plan was to get to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible. In this regard, U.S. District Judge Linda Parker, did Powell a huge favor in not dragging it out.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 07, 2020, 11:41:22 PM
I note you've not said whether you accept the bet or explained why not.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 08, 2020, 11:25:12 AM
I heard on the radio some caller said something that I found interesting. It would be nice if we had some real investigations into voter fraud. He pointed out that we had Congressional hearings on juicing in baseball. We had 19 FBI agents go down to investigate a pull rope in a NASCAR garage. What do we have as far as investigations into voter fraud. It looks like just the bare minimum and actually not even that.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on December 08, 2020, 11:29:06 AM
Trump did have an investigation into fraud.  I think the guy from Kansas headed it. They found nothing of any size happened. So it got shut down
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: TheDrake on December 08, 2020, 11:48:03 AM
Quote
According to AP VoteCast, Trump won 8 percent of the Black vote, about a 2 percentage-point gain on his 2016 numbers (using the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, or CCES, a national survey of more than 50,000 confirmed voters, as a point of comparison).

I don't get why the Orange God Worshippers are bragging on this gain. WOWEEE. He went from 6% to 8%!!!!!!
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: wmLambert on December 08, 2020, 12:10:06 PM
Quote
According to AP VoteCast, Trump won 8 percent of the Black vote, about a 2 percentage-point gain on his 2016 numbers (using the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, or CCES, a national survey of more than 50,000 confirmed voters, as a point of comparison).

I don't get why the Orange God Worshippers are bragging on this gain. WOWEEE. He went from 6% to 8%!!!!!!

Such a smarmy Troll. There is no Orange God, except in your own jealous brain, but there is a damn decent and patriotic man who has done more for his country than Obama or Biden ever did. And he didn't launder money with any nations through his family. Or had a son with child porn on his laptop and videos of him with his underage niece. But Biden did have a complicit MSM to cover for him. Trump just had family members who could pull their own weight and earn whatever salaries they received.

The support from minorities came from his active support for them. Ask Leo Terrell how much he is supported by his fellows.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Wayward Son on December 08, 2020, 12:14:21 PM
Quote
According to AP VoteCast, Trump won 8 percent of the Black vote, about a 2 percentage-point gain on his 2016 numbers (using the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, or CCES, a national survey of more than 50,000 confirmed voters, as a point of comparison).

I don't get why the Orange God Worshippers are bragging on this gain. WOWEEE. He went from 6% to 8%!!!!!!

Come on, Drake.  That's a huge 33 percent increase.  An incredible increase.  Astounding!  Unheard-of!  Better than Lincoln!

The only was he could have done better is if he went from 1 percent to 2 percent, an unheard-of 100 percent increase! :)
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: TheDrake on December 08, 2020, 12:29:31 PM
Quote
According to AP VoteCast, Trump won 8 percent of the Black vote, about a 2 percentage-point gain on his 2016 numbers (using the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, or CCES, a national survey of more than 50,000 confirmed voters, as a point of comparison).

I don't get why the Orange God Worshippers are bragging on this gain. WOWEEE. He went from 6% to 8%!!!!!!

Such a smarmy Troll. There is no Orange God, except in your own jealous brain, but there is a damn decent and patriotic man who has done more for his country than Obama or Biden ever did. And he didn't launder money with any nations through his family. Or had a son with child porn on his laptop and videos of him with his underage niece. But Biden did have a complicit MSM to cover for him. Trump just had family members who could pull their own weight and earn whatever salaries they received.

The support from minorities came from his active support for them. Ask Leo Terrell how much he is supported by his fellows.

All 8% of them. Overwhelming support.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: yossarian22c on December 08, 2020, 12:31:28 PM
And he didn't launder money with any nations through his family.

He laundered money directly through his properties.

The Qatar Investment Authority Advisory rented out offices in a Trump property but left them empty. I wonder what they were getting for their investment.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/09/how-everyone-is-quietly-lining-trumps-pockets (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/09/how-everyone-is-quietly-lining-trumps-pockets)

Or have Saudi Arabia rent out an entire hotel.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/06/politics/trump-hotel-saudi-arabia-lobbyists/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/06/politics/trump-hotel-saudi-arabia-lobbyists/index.html)

How many lobbyists and foreign governments hosted events at the Trump DC hotel again?

And it will probably take years to see how many condo's and homes were sold by Trump to straw buyers at above market rates.

Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: TheDrake on December 08, 2020, 12:34:30 PM
And I should listen to Leo Terrell, why? His credentials are pretty sparse. Oh, I know why, because he declared his worship for the Orange God. I imagine you, like me, never heard of this guy previously. Even wikipedia can barely eke out a paragraph on him. I'm not disparaging any of his achievements, but citing him as "proof black people like Trump" is just ridiculous.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: TheDeamon on December 08, 2020, 01:20:50 PM
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2020-presidential-election-joe-biden-donald-trump-patrick-basham-mark-levin

Does present some interesting points, but it's trivia without much substance:

Trump is the first incumbent president to increase his voter turnout, and still lose.

Trump is the first instance where the anecdotal metric tracking Halloween mask sales/rentals has failed to predict who wins the election.

Trump is the only candidate besides Nixon in 1960 to win the the States of Iowa, Florida, and Ohio since 1852 and fail to win the presidential election. (Where incidentally, voter fraud is still suspected to have played a role in Kennedy's win)

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-55062413

Of the 19 "pivot counties" in the United States that have a 40 year or longer track record of voting for the candidate that wins the election... Biden managed to win one of them.

And in some cases, those streaks ran for far longer than 40 years.

Quote
In Valencia County, New Mexico, which had correctly predicted the winner of every presidential election since 1952, Mr Trump won by 10 points; in Indiana's Vigo County, which backed every president bar two since 1888, he prevailed by 15 points.

In Westmoreland County, Virginia - a small, rural community south of Washington DC that's failed to be a bellwether only twice since 1928, and is home to twice the number of African Americans than the national average - he beat Mr Biden by 16 points.

Granted every streak like that is going to break eventually, as the Valencia County example above indicates, they've been wrong before, they'll be wrong again. But the sheer scale of how many counties "broke their streak" on this cycle is staggering.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on December 08, 2020, 01:27:39 PM
Is it proof of anything?  No.  But many of you are too good at statistics not to see issues with this. 

I must not be that good at statistics.  Because I still don't believe that the 2004 Redsox cheated to win the ALCS.  Despite being one hell of a statistical outlier.

If you tallied the number of sexual partners I've had, per year, by year, you would find some real statistical outliers between graduating college and marriage.  I mean some real fishy numbers.  Like, how do you go from zero zero zero zero zero, year after year, then you put up these kinds of big numbers, and then you drop to one one one one one one one.  Definitely a conspiracy.  I smell fraud.  Better call Giuliani. 

Quote
What does it mean that this election is an improbable statistical outlier?  And that registrations managed a stunning jump even though you'd think the well might be dry after 2 of the last 3 elections were historic "firsts" elections that themselves had already increased voter interest (and the eligible voter population had decreased).  The voting totals managed an even more stunning jump.

I guess it means that Donald Trump truly was simultaneously the most beloved and hated President in the history of the United States.  Is that hard to believe?  I mean, was L'Chattegrabber that much of an outlier compared to other Presidents?  What he really that different?  I can't imagine.  Sheeeit, Donald Trump is really just a more modern, manly version of Jackson or Teddy Roosevelt, right? 

By the way, the statistical outlier and historic first arguments for "there is something fishy here" work against Trump too, since he got record numbers of total votes for a Republican, I believe. 

Quote
It means that 70% of eligible adults voted in CA.  That's improbably bigger than the 58.7% that voted in the election with a chance to elect the first female President.  That's improbably bigger than the 59.22% that voted in the election of the country's first black president (a speaker that literally inspired people to swoon), or the 55.47% that showed up to give him a second term.

Again, this premise rests on the idea that Donald Trump could not possibly be more hated than Hillary Clinton was loved.  Totally improbable.  Hillary and L'Orange are such likeable people.  Beloved, really.  Beloved. 

Quote
So what are we left with?  Did ballot harvesting cause this much of an increase?  Maybe.  Was it it really just super passion about Trump?  Maybe, but then it's interesting that Trump votes increased so much in CA as well (slightly higher rate of increase than the pro-Biden vote).  Did coordinated scams cause it?  Possibly, but absent an audit of who the nearly 3 million new voters were (and possibly a need to go back further) not clear how it would ever be proven.   Did we really a 20% increase in voting totals, or did it just seem "as if" we had such an increase in a system where we opened the floodgates to fraud through mail-in ballots?

I see no point to any of this.  Did Egyptians really build the pyramids?  Could the Nazis really cook 6 million Jews with only 3 ovens in 3 years?  Could Lee Harvey Oswald really make that shot? 
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 08, 2020, 01:46:02 PM
https://xkcd.com/2383/

1916: No Democrat has won while losing West Virginia (Wilson did)
1948: Democrats can't win without Alabama (Truman did)
1960: Catholics can't win (until Kennedy)
1964: Every Republican who's taken Louisiana has won (until Goldwater)
1976: No one who lost New Mexico has won. (until Carter did)
1992: No Democrat has won without a majority of the Catholic vote (until Clinton did)
2000: No Republican has won without Vermont (until Bush did)
2008: No Democrat can win without Missouri (until Obama did)
2016: No one has become president without government or military experience (until Trump did)
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: TheDrake on December 08, 2020, 01:57:34 PM
Or we opened the floodgates to legitimate mail in ballots? Is it so surprising that when you make voting easier, more people vote? Not to mention that there was a full court press in entertainment to get out the vote, very different than in past years. Website links on how to get registered, day in and day out. Pickup truck caravans to support the Orange God. Plus a high profile supreme court appointment in the waning days. A sense among everybody voting that we were fighting an existential threat to our republic, on both sides.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Seriati on December 08, 2020, 06:43:41 PM
So you don't like the CA stats?  What about Wisconsin?  Remember how literally on Oct. 28-30, there were hundreds of news articles touting how Biden was up 17 points on Trump?

Well, Trump got 1.405 M votes in 2016.  If you assume Trump stays static, what would Biden need to get to be "up" 17 points (margin of error 4 points)?  He'd need to get 1.644 M votes.  Actual reported result for Biden?  1.630 M votes (just about exactly 16 points from Trump's 2016 vote numbers).

According to a fact check on USA today.  Wisconsin had 3.684 m registered voters. with a turn out of almost 3.28 m.  Almost a 90% turn out.  In comparison in Nov. 2016 they had 3.559 m voters and a turn out around 2.976 M (83.6% turn out). 

However, Wisc. has same day registration so if we look registrations on Dec. 2020, then we get 3.811 m (86%) and in 2016 (Nov. 16) there were 3.620 m (82%, which includes all same day regis), but by Dec 2016 they had 3.711 m (80%, not clear why so many registrations posted between those reports).  Now apparently, the factcheckers are running a "debunk" on this concept mostly because they claim that the 89% is being compared to voter participation calculated on a different basis (not what I did above).  Effectively Wisconsin uses all eligible voters in it's own calculations.  Wisconsin was at 5.86 m population in 2020 and 5.78 m in 2016, which means they added about 80k people.  So again, not an impossible jump, but is it really a probable one?

Biden got 260k more votes than Hillary, in an election where 290 k more votes were tabulated (with a total pop increase of 80k).

Of course Trump got 205k more votes than Trump did previously.  3rd party voters really disappeared going from around 185k to 50k.  It's not remotely off to believe that those 135k voters most likely still voted.  Which means roughly 135k of the 465k new voters are "accounted" for.  No significant Green party, but the Libertarians lost more than 60k votes that don't seem likely to have switched to Biden en masse. 

I get it, 465k votes doesn't sound like a lot, but it's a huge number in Wisconsin.  Biden won by 20k votes (0.6%), where that 465k votes was around 14.3% of the total votes cast.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on December 08, 2020, 07:27:10 PM
I get it, 465k votes doesn't sound like a lot, but it's a huge number in Wisconsin.  Biden won by 20k votes (0.6%), where that 465k votes was around 14.3% of the total votes cast.

More people voted, Serati.  That's the simplest solution.  What is the alternative theory?  I know you don't want to give any theories because any alternate theory proposed would need something to back it up.  And there isn't anything to back up a massive conspiracy of fraud.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: TheDrake on December 08, 2020, 09:09:54 PM
Johnson had 4.5 million votes in 2016. Jorgenson had 1.8 million. Those voters went somewhere, because they didn't just decide they were suddenly not interested in politics. I think you'd be surprised how many might have gone to Biden, I'm one of them that voted for Gary and probably would have voted Jo if Texas were not predicted to be close.

As for Wisconsin, I don't have any difficulty believing that most people who registered also voted. A lot of people were far more likely to either vote absentee or voted early. I would bet that a significant number of people who wait for election day wind up not going, just because of mundane things like feeling ill, or having car troubles.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DonaldD on December 08, 2020, 10:11:48 PM
So you don't like the CA stats?  What about Wisconsin?  Remember how literally on Oct. 28-30, there were hundreds of news articles touting how Biden was up 17 points on Trump?
This whole argument is curve fitting, but it's not even clever curve fitting: the average of polls just before election day had Biden up by about 8%, not 17% (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/).  So the contention is the vast Wisconsin conspiracy chose the poll that had Biden up by 17% and tried to fit the results to that?  Why not fit the results to another poll, like the one with Biden up by 14%, or 12%, or 5%?  Or to the average of polls?

Well, guess what? Over the 7-10 days before the election, you could find almost any percentage margin to choose from that would match the end results in Wisconsin within 1%.  It's just a silly argument.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 09, 2020, 01:23:51 AM
Seriati

"3rd party voters really disappeared going from around 185k to 50k."

That was another interesting thing about this election and one may wonder if after seeing how Jill Stein probably cost Hillary the election in 2016 if no third parties were running this election or was it instead that our mainstream media that was determined to do anything and everything they possibly could to help Biden win just refused to report, at all, on any third party candidates this cycle. I've never seen an election like this without any coverage of third parties. I find it harder to believe that they suddenly ceased to exist than I do that the media sucked up all their oxygen and suffocated them all to death because reporting reality would cost Biden votes.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DonaldD on December 09, 2020, 07:58:09 AM
... or maybe, just maybe, those who would otherwise have voted third party as a protest felt that getting rid of Trump was far too important this time and decided not to throw away their votes on a symbolic gesture.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 09, 2020, 08:08:35 AM
I follow the news pretty well and if I couldn't tell you who was running as third party candidates I seriously doubt most other Americans could either. It's very clear that the media was determined not to give Americans the information necessary to make any informed decisions about third party options. All information about them was self-censored by unstated understating. I can understand if Americans got savvy to the fact that there is a strong argument to be made that voting third party can end up giving you less of what you want compared to voting for the lesser of two evils. I don't disagree. But that doesn't explain why the media pretty much didn't cover any third party options this time around, at all. That's a completely separate issue. The mainstream media did it's level best to rig the election as much as possible in favor of Biden. They refused to report anything negative about him and exaggerated or outright lied about Trump to make him look like the epitome of pure evil.

Just as a test, without looking it up, who knows who was running as third party candidates? No need to answer really. It can be on the honor system. But everyone can decide for themselves whether their experience makes my point or not.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: yossarian22c on December 09, 2020, 08:49:19 AM
Just as a test, without looking it up, who knows who was running as third party candidates? No need to answer really. It can be on the honor system. But everyone can decide for themselves whether their experience makes my point or not.

I failed. I couldn't name the candidates, a green, libertarian, and constitution party were on the ticket in my state this year. 2 out of 3 of those are more likely to catabolize Trump. But the third party candidates have been getting less attention every cycle since 2000 when Nadar was a spoiler for Gore. And Trump is polarizing enough that I am actually surprised that third parties got any votes this cycle.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DonaldD on December 09, 2020, 09:15:00 AM
There was barely any coverage of Biden - it's not surprising nobody paid attention to third parties.  Trump is most successful in his ability to suck all the oxygen out of the media.  And let's face it - it's not like 3rd parties were covered much in previous election cycles, except maybe for the coverage associated with the lack of coverage associated to being 3rd parties.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: wmLambert on December 09, 2020, 10:16:31 AM
...More people voted, Serati.  That's the simplest solution.  What is the alternative theory?  I know you don't want to give any theories because any alternate theory proposed would need something to back it up.  And there isn't anything to back up a massive conspiracy of fraud.

There was a conspiracy, but it wasn't in challenging voter fraud. The thousands of whistle-blowers and legal evidence via affidavits prove chicanery of an unprecedented order. Do you really claim ignorance of all the cheating for Biden? We now have proof that there was foreign interference in the election. That triggers Trumps Executive Order: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/exclusive-president-trmps-executive-order-regarding-foreign-intervention-us-elections-may-result-perilous-consequences-biden-family-others/

Specifically, The Democrats conspired to produce an illegal system they could exploit to harvest votes never before offered by their lackluster base. The cheating is so wide-spread that all the numbers may never be known.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on December 09, 2020, 10:24:58 AM
But that doesn't explain why the media pretty much didn't cover any third party options this time around, at all. That's a completely separate issue. The mainstream media did it's level best to rig the election as much as possible in favor of Biden. They refused to report anything negative about him and exaggerated or outright lied about Trump to make him look like the epitome of pure evil.

This is true.  I don't understand why Fox News, whose viewership ratings dwarf both CNN, MSNBC, and all networks combined, did not spend more time talking about third party candidates.  I still can't believe Fox News rigged the election in favor of Biden and refused to report anything negative about him.  I can't believe they lied about President Trump.  But Trump knew and called them out on it several times.  Going to have to switch to Newsmax and OAN.  Crooked crooked Main Stream Media. 

Quote
Just as a test, without looking it up, who knows who was running as third party candidates? No need to answer really. It can be on the honor system. But everyone can decide for themselves whether their experience makes my point or not.

Hmmm.  I can't remember who they are now.  I remember looking very hard at all of them who looked even remotely attractive, begging Zeus, "please don't make me vote for a Democrat for POTUS".  I remember some party that David French may have voted for.  I can't even remember it's name now.  The "Happy Americans Together" party, or whatever.  But the simple fact of the matter is that Biden simply wasn't unattractive enough for me to force me to vote for the Kumbaya Party.  I guess because Fox News wasn't carrying enough negative Biden coverage. 

 I mean, honestly, how many hours of coverage did CNN and MSNBC carry for third party candidates in 2020?  Can anybody here tell me?  Obviously someone here must know because I've been told that they were in the bag for Biden. 
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: yossarian22c on December 09, 2020, 10:29:25 AM
There was a conspiracy, but it wasn't in challenging voter fraud. The thousands of whistle-blowers and legal evidence via affidavits prove chicanery of an unprecedented order. Do you really claim ignorance of all the cheating for Biden? We now have proof that there was foreign interference in the election. That triggers Trumps Executive Order: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/exclusive-president-trmps-executive-order-regarding-foreign-intervention-us-elections-may-result-perilous-consequences-biden-family-others/

Specifically, The Democrats conspired to produce an illegal system they could exploit to harvest votes never before offered by their lackluster base. The cheating is so wide-spread that all the numbers may never be known.

Republicans controlled the system (at the state level) in almost all of the swing states.

If the cheating is so wide spread and so proven, can you pick one county, one incident that is "most proven" to you and present the evidence here. Note "random guy" on blogspot or random YouTube conspiracy theorist doesn't really count as "proof" or really evidence of any significant extent.

Which of your false theories you want to go with?
Ware County - voting machines already where checked by a full hand recount.
Secret CIA servers - this one is insane, denied by the army and why are sitting on the "proof".
Something else: Go here, new is always good. What's being wrong one more time after your record on these fraud allegations.

Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 09, 2020, 10:51:14 AM
But that doesn't explain why the media pretty much didn't cover any third party options this time around, at all. That's a completely separate issue. The mainstream media did it's level best to rig the election as much as possible in favor of Biden.

So, you're saying the mainstream media didn't cover the third party option of "Libertarians", because that would take votes away from the Democrats? That's not usually the party where libertarian votes tend to go in America, is it? They usually go to Republicans.

Frankly I find it shameful that you use the same phrase "rig the election" for this kind of thing that is used by the conspiracy nuts who argue the election was stolen via, you know, actual election fraud.

By doing this, and by putting this sort of comment in an "election fraud" thread, you're also allying yourself with the lying Trump administration and the various nutjobs who believe it. Like Seriati (and unlike wmLambert who seems to genuinely believe the crap he's saying), it's not as if you actually believe the election was stolen, it's not as if you *actually* believe there was actual significant election fraud, you are just doing your best to muddle the issue with irrelevant nonsense. It's okay that Trump says the "election was stolen"... because the media turned people against him, oh no! But that's a bit of a very different accusation he's making that the election was frozen via election fraud. If Trump was just blaming the media for turning the people unfairly against him, NOBODY WOULD *censored*ING CARE.

All in all, rather dishonest of you. A game of "motte and bailey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy)" where the same phrase "rig the election" is used to mean two different things.

Btw, I don't see you complaining how the evangelical & other religious groups supported Trump, nor do I see you complaining that the various religious groups tried to "rig the election" as much as possible in favour of Trump. I suppose it's excused if you have a direct line from god, telling you that Trump is the chosen one. It's okay to "rig the election" then, when God is telling you to.

Is it okay for religious groups to support Trump, or is that somehow not "rigging the election" according to you?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: TheDrake on December 09, 2020, 12:23:39 PM
Gary Johnson was a two term Governor and a pretty well known name, plus there was a LOT of speculation that he would cost Trump the election, possibly win electoral votes and prevent a majority, or gain enough support to force his way in to the general election debates.

Jo Jorgenson's last political activity was Harry Browne's running mate 24 years ago. You don't need a conspiracy to know why she didn't get the TV interviews that Johnson did.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: TheDeamon on December 09, 2020, 04:29:15 PM
Jo Jorgenson's last political activity was Harry Browne's running mate 24 years ago. You don't need a conspiracy to know why she didn't get the TV interviews that Johnson did.

Well, she also tweeted the whole "we must be anti-racist" thing and re-iterated it a few other times. Considering all of the other associated "baggage" with that phrase, that it could send a number of libertarians running for the exits is hardly shocking. It isn't that the libertarians are pro-racism, they're just against getting the government more involved in "the war on racism" in America. That's only asking for an even bigger boondoggle than the "War on Drugs."
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DonaldD on December 09, 2020, 04:34:14 PM
Wow.  17 other states have signed on to the Texas suit as amici curiae, trying to overthrow the certifications of the states that supported Biden (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163215/20201209144840609_2020-12-09%20-%20Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20-%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Missouri%20et%20al.%20-%20Final%20with%20Tables.pdf).

It's not as if they even want to be successful - can you imagine if SCOTUS actually agreed with that argument?  You'd have California suing Kansas over environmental regulations.  New York suing Texas over taxation.  It's ridiculous, and they know it.  But they see that sucking up to idiotic Trump supporters in this way as being of political benefit.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Seriati on December 09, 2020, 04:58:55 PM
At this point Seriati, you're just gish-galloping, right? Deliberately making long confusing arguments in 9 paragraphs that you could have done in 3 lines, but you're not making them in 3 lines, because everyone would see how ridiculous they'd look.

Not making anything longer than it needs to be.  My concern has always been that cheating in elections is rampant, largely unpunished and virtually impossible to correct.  Showing statistical oddities, oddities that were easily correctable but that one party went very far to ensure would not be  corrected, helps to highlight the first and second and hopefully to broach the idea that we need to consider the 3rd.  Of course, that will back fire because like with most things in our two tiered justice system it will only ever be allowed to overturn an election that  goes for the Republican candidate.

Quote
Here's the TLDR (3 lines worth) of your comment for anyone who couldn't bother to follow it: You claim that ALL 50 the states' election numbers are fraudulent.

I did not.  I do expect that you could find fraudulent votes in all 50 states if you knew where to look.

Quote
Hardline-red-states and hardline-blue-states, supposedly they all faked their numbers so that it *looked* as if turnout was significantly higher across the nation, even in states that weren't battleground states at all.

I don't think any states faked their numbers.  It may be that people in certain states engaged in significantly more successful scams and actually faked numbers.  In most locations I suspect that what happened most in this election was expansion of existing vote by mail vote harvesting scams.  Unprecedented vote by mail created an unprecedented opportunity.

Quote
They increased both Biden's and Trump's numbers in comparative amounts, just so that it *looked* as if turnout was higher, as it would be suspicious if Trump's numbers remained the same while only Biden's increased.

Nope. I suspect they increased Biden's not realizing that Trump's were going to increase.  They pretty much hate Trump and were convinced that he'd lose votes.  That was kind of my point in showing the stats and talking about the pre-election polls.  Those polls were a concerted effort ahead of the election to hard sell a much better result for the DNC than occurred anywhere - to normalize a fraudulent result as what was expected. 

I think a surprising number of real voters switched from a prior candidate to Trump.  I think that's what is behind one of the oddest statistical anomalies of the election.  Trump increased his percentage of the votes with black men, black women, hispanic men, hispanic women, other minority women and other minority men.  He "lost" statistically because he lost ground mostly with white men.  Interesting statistical result for the candidate that many on here have repeatedly asserted is a racist.  But probably a pretty likely result if you were trying to manipulate the vote for the DNC as you'd want to minimize attention by pushing the fake votes through white men and white women to minimize the "look" that minority districts had been manipulated.  It's also a result you may expect with manipulation in favor of Trump, where he would have added votes everywhere to fit his themes.  The problem is that it's far harder for Trump or the RNC to have accomplished it than it is for the DNC to have done so.

A detailed local look at Demographics, voter registration and voter turn out might (or might not) reveal statistical impossibilities that would clarify.   

Quote
They supposedly did fraud in favour of both Biden & Trump across all 50 states, so that their additional fraud in the battleground states in favour of Biden wouldn't... look out-of-place. (and yet wmLambert's very argument was that it was indeed supposedly out of place....

Ultimately even if you through confusion and clutter by adding some fake votes for the other team for fraud to work you have to add significantly more votes to your own team.

Quote
I no longer believe you believe anything you say.

That's disappointing but not surprising.  Maybe you could show me where I said something untrue that warrants it.  Otherwise it seems like covering your ears to avoid hearing that you don't want to hear.

Quote
wmLamber does believe the things he says, because he clearly has some mental illness

That seems defamatory for you to claim, and unlikely to be true.  Maybe not worse than asserting he has TDS (or I guess BDS), but with a lot less evidence.  In any event, it's literally the fault of the media.  They openly lied in this election to help get Biden elected.  Your team knows they lied and rather than calling them to account egged them on and then engaged in a persistent gaslighting campaign to claim their lies were true.  There is no credible source of objective and fully verified information BECAUSE your team destroyed it to gain a momentary advantage.  Against that background there is no mental illness in not accepting what the media claim, or in believing sources that later may turn out to be false.

Quote
-- but *you*, no, I don't believe that *you* believe any of this crap. I think you're purposefully being dishonest, and purposefully spreading lies and confusion to make "your side" look as if they're not the villains of the story that they are.

I believe that the DNC cheats virtually all the time.  I believe that DNC politicians misuse and abuse every single lever of power they control nearly all the time.  It's not all Democrats, its not even all politicians, but it's enough and enough more useful morons that don't know the difference to have an impact.

When they misuse power so often and so egregiously,  it's hard to believe that they'd suddenly find principles when it comes to an election.  And the evidence is that they didn't.  Every single legal case fighting a non-existant voting issue that required a "solution" that made the election less secure came from DNC lawyers.  Every last minute voting law change to laws that have been in place in 4 years came from DNC activist lawyers and generally DNC appointed judges.  And lets not pretend, if Trump was in the lead at this point, you'd not only have 10 times the legal actions, you'd have 10,000 times the media coverage, and there's absolutely no chance that say YouTube would be threatening to remove content that claims the election was fraudulent.  Nope they'd be removing content that "falsely" claimed Trump had won or that that the election was secure.

Quote
And you add your "maybe"s at the end, to cover your ass, as if saying that "something looks like a scam" (when you don't believe it does) makes it all the better, when your end motivation is to obfuscate and confuse rather than clarify and enlighten.

I have to add maybe for the simple reason that you can't prove it in this system.  If we set up a system where you're going to get a million bucks if a coin flip comes up heads, and owe me a million where it comes up tails, but I flip the coin in private in my house and tell you the result is there anyway at all that you're going to believe that it came up tails just because I told you it did?  That's a straight up 50/50 chance, just as probable that it was tails as not, but the system was set up in a way that you CAN'T verify it and I have every opportunity to cheat.  When you take it to court your case will get dismissed because you can't prove the coin came up heads, you'll have no evidence.

When a system has been rigged, and openly rigged, to make it unsecure and the party that benefits from it being unsecure wins, there's no way that it's believable.  Finding statistical unlikliehoods against that backdrop really are the only kind of proof there ever could be and they're enough to persuade on something that deliberately by design can never been fully known.

Quote
Quote
We also have a roughly 20% voter turnout increase nationwide, which aligns roughly with the CA increase (ignoring historical differences that should have resulted in a difference in CA).  But a state like FL for example didn't see such a large jump in voter turn out,

2016 Florida votes: 4,504,975 Clinton - 4,617,886 Trump
2020 Florida votes: 5,297,045 Biden - 5,668,731 Trump

5,297,045 / 4,504,975 = an increase of 17% for the Democratic ticket in Florida
5,668,731 / 4,617,886 = an increase of 22% for the Republican ticket in Florida

Where did you get there wasn't a large jump in voter turn out in Florida?

I see where I confused you there.  We had a 20% increase in voting, not a 20% increase in voter turnout.  If you look at what I said about FL you didn't see a big jump in voter turn out in this election.  Now there's lots of reasons that could be, FL has been a battle ground state.  I was looking at this article at the time https://www.news4jax.com/vote-2020/2020/11/04/florida-voters-turnout-highest-in-28-years/ (https://www.news4jax.com/vote-2020/2020/11/04/florida-voters-turnout-highest-in-28-years/).  You can clearly see that while high, it's not a big jump over the last Presidential elections 75% for each of Obama and Trump's first years - both of which were historic firsts (first black man, first woman). 

FL's population is 21.5 m (2019) versus 20.2 m (2015 for the four year comparison).  12.5 registered in 2016, versus 14.225 in 2020.  So roughly speaking, the state gained 1.3 million people but 1.725 m registered voters, and as you noted saw roughly almost 1.9 m more votes between Biden and Trump than Trump and Hillary.

Your extra votes were roughly in line with your extra registrations though again turn out was higher than you'd expect.  Florida has been a battleground in virtually everyone of those elections, with maximum pressure to register and get out the vote in each year, and 2 of those years were historic first elections, with a lot of people passionate to get out and vote the first black president and others passionate about electing the first woman president (Trump v. Hillary was also an election where both candidates were passionately hated).  Yet in 2020, where we have senile old Biden on the ticket, a candidate that literally no one was the least bit excited by we get even more?  I mean in theory Kamala Harris was a first as well, but there's little indication that she was ever liked or that any relevant demographic group broke more because of her.  Anyway, here's the link on registration, you can check the population yourself. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/20/democrats-advantage-over-republicans-among-florida-registered-voters-has-shrunk-since-2016/ (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/20/democrats-advantage-over-republicans-among-florida-registered-voters-has-shrunk-since-2016/)

The biggest oddity in FL is the registration increase, which gives some cover to the turn out only be 77%, which doesn't seem a huge jump, but is in fact a big jump for a state that it seems impossible to imagine wasn't already nearly fully harvested in adults that cared enough to register and to vote.

Quote
But oh, look, wmLambert liked your post, your lies are feeding his delusion and you don't care about that. Cheers, mate.

Nothing I said was a lie.  I'm not even you sure you can reasonably dispute much of it.  You can disagree with interpretations and implications of course. 

But when so many had no problem believing (and some agianst all evidence still believe) a whole convoluted theory of Russian collusion by Trump, or that a Ukraine scandal flagged by a secret whistleblower that was drafted by DNC activist lawyers and never had actual evidence of tying to Trump was a valid basis for impeach, it seems very off for you to apparently find it troubling to your core that election fraud occurred.  I mean, you had one whistleblower in Ukraine that didn't report on anything actually illegal, and here there seem to be  hundreds (if not thousands) of whistleblower accounts about improprieties in this election, and you and the media are doing everything in your power to ignore them.  There are easily identifiable oddities in a system where one team has done everything they can to ensure that you can't actually verify the coin flip.

I'm not what you would expect to find in a rigged election, but honestly, I'm stunned given the back drop how much has already been found. 

And that's before you even consider all the apparently legal election manipulation that occurred before we got around to voting.  I mean according to the DNC it is of overwhelming vital importance to be sure that every vote is counted - which would seem to imply that they believe that everyone should have a say - yet they overwhelming all support suppressing information that should have been provided to those same votes.  Apparently informed voters are not desirable.  What kind of people what to ensure that "every vote" counts but also that only uniformed people are voting?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Wayward Son on December 09, 2020, 05:09:34 PM
Wow.  17 other states have signed on to the Texas suit as amici curiae, trying to overthrow the certifications of the states that supported Biden (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163215/20201209144840609_2020-12-09%20-%20Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20-%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Missouri%20et%20al.%20-%20Final%20with%20Tables.pdf).

It's not as if they even want to be successful - can you imagine if SCOTUS actually agreed with that argument?  You'd have California suing Kansas over environmental regulations.  New York suing Texas over taxation.  It's ridiculous, and they know it.  But they see that sucking up to idiotic Trump supporters in this way as being of political benefit.

I have a bad feeling about this.

I have a feeling that these state officials know something that we don't.  That the fix is in.  That all these other lawsuits were just the sideshow for this main event.  And the outcome is already predetermined.

The suit has no basis.  As you say, why should any other state be able to dictate how another runs its elections?  That's the one thing the Constitution left to the states.  Feeding the base doesn't seem to be a good enough reason to join.  But jumping on the bandwagon does.

If the SCOTUS finds for this suit, it will be a very narrow ruling, only applying to this election, so as to leave all other state's right intact.  So there is no downside to joining this suit.  But that would be already determined.

One state trying a crazy lawsuit is standard operating procedure in America.  Seventeen joining it?  That smells of conspiracy to me.

I hope I'm just overreacting.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 09, 2020, 05:29:18 PM
I think the point is that though states can within reasonable limits decide how they run their own elections they can't just do anything they want however they want to do it and they must follow certain rules and procedures, especially their own rules and procedures within their own state. And if they want to change the rules they must follow their own processes to do so. We saw the Supreme Court rule against Trump because of exactly that, supposedly not following the proper procedures to do something even if he had the power to do it. By the same token, maybe states had the power to do some of the things they did but if they didn't go about it the right way, for instance with an amendment to their state constitution instead of simple legislative action. That would be a huge mistake.

We saw with DACA how much of a stickler for procedure Roberts pretends to be so we'll see what happens here. The states played very fast and very loose with the election this time around, pretty much just saying, "Because Covid." Did the states really make all the changes they made the right way they needed to be made? Were all of those changes legal? We'll see.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 09, 2020, 05:32:35 PM
or that a Ukraine scandal flagged by a secret whistleblower that was drafted by DNC activist lawyers and never had actual evidence of tying to Trump was a valid basis for impeach, it seems very off for you to apparently find it troubling to your core that election fraud occurred.  I mean, you had one whistleblower in Ukraine that didn't report on anything actually illegal, and here there seem to be  hundreds (if not thousands) of whistleblower accounts about improprieties in this election, and you and the media are doing everything in your power to ignore them.

WHAT THE ACTUAL *censored*?

I've read the Ukraine transcript myself. Trump didn't even deny that conversation took place as the transcript details it. Trump himself admitted that he put pressure on Ukraine to investigate Biden.

So *censored* off. You're saying it's not impeach-worthy? Okay, you may have different standards about what needs be done to be impeach-worthy, I doubt you'd consider it impeach-worthy if Trump shot a person in 5th avenue.

But the facts of Trump's misdeed was clear and undeniable, and you have the chutzpah to compare that with a bunch of testimonies that you've not found a single judge (not even Trump appointees) in the whole of America to consider credible. Of course Trump insisted that he won "by LOTS" before he had any testimonies. His team first insisted he won, and then asked for testimonies that would make this happen.

And from the millions of his supporters, most of whom wouldn't care if he shot someone in 5th avenue, gee there were some willing to lie for him, or at least to make a mountain of a molehill.

A hundred lies don't sum up to a truth. You and the Trump team are making up imaginary scenarios about Dominion machines, about raids in Frankfurt and Spain, about votes been xeroxed, about mail fraud, and you've not proven (or given sufficient evidence) a SINGLE one of your wild stories, but you think that a hundred lies you've conconcted will pile up to a single truth. It won't.

Quote
I mean according to the DNC it is of overwhelming vital importance to be sure that every vote is counted - which would seem to imply that they believe that everyone should have a say - yet they overwhelming all support suppressing information that should have been provided to those same votes.  Apparently informed voters are not desirable.  What kind of people what to ensure that "every vote" counts but also that only uniformed people are voting?

In 2016 Trump refused to release his tax returns, as every candidate for the presidency has done for the past 40 years.

It seems that he wanted the voters uninformed too.

For that matter, has Trump been informing the religious people he's talking with that doesn't believe a iota of their religion? Or has he instead been presenting himself as a supposed Christian?

I don't see you complaining about those.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: rightleft22 on December 09, 2020, 05:34:49 PM
Wow.  17 other states have signed on to the Texas suit as amici curiae, trying to overthrow the certifications of the states that supported Biden (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163215/20201209144840609_2020-12-09%20-%20Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20-%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Missouri%20et%20al.%20-%20Final%20with%20Tables.pdf).

It's not as if they even want to be successful - can you imagine if SCOTUS actually agreed with that argument?  You'd have California suing Kansas over environmental regulations.  New York suing Texas over taxation.  It's ridiculous, and they know it.  But they see that sucking up to idiotic Trump supporters in this way as being of political benefit.

I have a bad feeling about this.

I have a feeling that these state officials know something that we don't.  That the fix is in.  That all these other lawsuits were just the sideshow for this main event.  And the outcome is already predetermined.

The suit has no basis.  As you say, why should any other state be able to dictate how another runs its elections?  That's the one thing the Constitution left to the states.  Feeding the base doesn't seem to be a good enough reason to join.  But jumping on the bandwagon does.

If the SCOTUS finds for this suit, it will be a very narrow ruling, only applying to this election, so as to leave all other state's right intact.  So there is no downside to joining this suit.  But that would be already determined.

One state trying a crazy lawsuit is standard operating procedure in America.  Seventeen joining it?  That smells of conspiracy to me.

I hope I'm just overreacting.

Trump hinted that he would comment on his final opinion on Barr until sometime in the near future.  It was odd and to me suggested he was working towards something.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: NobleHunter on December 09, 2020, 05:35:57 PM
I'm pretty sure the added states are just posturing.

The court will probably come back with "you have no standing, we have no authority, and there's no remedy. Dismissed." It's one thing to change the rules about the election before it happens but another entirely to invalidate certified results.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DonaldD on December 09, 2020, 05:39:07 PM
Wayward, whether any other state signed on as amicus gives them no benefit, and doesn't exactly do anything to sway the court - it's not as if they are promoting any new, serious points of argument.  There's no downside to hopping on, and no (legally speaking) upside.  It's purely political.

And Cherry, a lot of what the complaint hinges on are things that Texas and the amici did themselves:
So they want the court to void the will of millions of voters in other states, because of things that applicants did themselves during the same election cycle.  It's just a ridiculous request.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: yossarian22c on December 09, 2020, 05:44:45 PM
I'm pretty sure the added states are just posturing.

The court will probably come back with "you have no standing, we have no authority, and there's no remedy. Dismissed." It's one thing to change the rules about the election before it happens but another entirely to invalidate certified results.

I agree. 60+% of Republicans believe the election was stolen. So deep red states representatives want to look like they’re doing something. But I think the SC returns with a similar answer the penn SC did. You want to challenge the rules of an election you have to do so before the votes are cast.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: kidv on December 09, 2020, 05:46:06 PM
Well, that just makes  . . . me . . . so. . . . . . proud to discover I reside in one of those states.  Because of course I do.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 09, 2020, 05:54:34 PM
Each state may have different procedures for changing it's voting laws. One state may require a constitutional amendment. Another may let the legislature do it. For all I know one may let the governor do it. I admit I don't know. Again, the point is that each state must at least follow it's own laws. So though I don't know the details and this is just off the cuff, just because one state did something and another state did the same thing doesn't necessarily mean they both did it legally. That's just an example though of what one aspect of the lawsuit might be. That's actually somewhat separate from the fraud angle.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 09, 2020, 06:02:33 PM
I'm sure it's very coincidental that the 4 states that Trump has accused *fraud* in are also the ones targetted by the Texas suit, though it doesn't allege fraud, only that the governors & the state supreme court oughtn't change the election rules the legislators made.

How many more states will have to have their results invalidated, if this reasoning is applied equally to all 50 states? I think Texas itself will have to, but how many more?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Wayward Son on December 09, 2020, 06:09:24 PM
Quote
We saw with DACA how much of a stickler for procedure Roberts pretends to be so we'll see what happens here. The states played very fast and very loose with the election this time around, pretty much just saying, "Because Covid." Did the states really make all the changes they made the right way they needed to be made? Were all of those changes legal? We'll see.

But aren't State Supreme Courts supposed to determine when something is legal according to State law, not the SCOTUS?  What jurisdiction does the SCOTUS have over state laws?

Quote
There's no downside to hopping on, and no (legally speaking) upside.  It's purely political.

I'm just have a bad feeling that they are hopping on for the purely political reason of being on the winning side when the SCOTUS rules for this suit.  As if they have some inside knowledge of the outcome beforehand.   :(
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 09, 2020, 07:18:21 PM
I'm just have a bad feeling that they are hopping on for the purely political reason of being on the winning side when the SCOTUS rules for this suit.  As if they have some inside knowledge of the outcome beforehand.   :(

They don't have any benefit in either being on the 'winning' or the 'losing' side. The Republicans just want to tell their Trumpist voters that they did their best to fight the 'fraud', so not participating in this would have looked bad for them, and participating in it looks good, even if SCOTUS also turns it down in a single sentence.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 09, 2020, 07:22:15 PM
Aris Katsaris

"The Republicans just want to tell their Trumpist voters that they did their best to fight the 'fraud', so not participating in this would have looked bad for them, and participating in it looks good, even if SCOTUS also turns it down in a single sentence."

I agree that this is what they are doing and this is also what they should do.

What is there to lose?

And when the dust clears and Biden is the President then at least the Republicans can truly say that they left it all on the field.

And sometimes the hail Mary pass actually works. Can't count on it and don't expect it; but if there is no other way then may as well go for it.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on December 09, 2020, 08:35:11 PM
What is there to lose?

What is there to lose? 

How about some self respect?  But I guess if you're making these lawsuits that are getting shot down over and over, that have no legal standing, and that every sensible lawyer on the planet is laughing at, you really don't have any self respect anymore anyways, so you might as well go for it because you're right, there is nothing more to lose because you have no more self respect.

I mean, it's one thing to lose a SCOTUS case 5-4, or 6-3.  You could say it was political or philosophical.  When your case gets rejected without dissent from SCOTUS, or if you lose a case in front of SCOTUS 9-0, then you were basically told to "getthafugouttaere" by the highest court in the land.  I know I know, just another band of elitists who think they know the law and constitution better than Joe American, paragon of common sense, the salt of the earth. 

I mean, you're basically saying that you're going up the teacher saying "Suzie cheated on the spelling bee, I should win the prize".  The teacher says "how did Suzie cheat?  we were watching her the whole time".  You say "oh I dunno, I just wanted to try. Can't say I didn't leave it all on the field".  The teacher now knows that you're either a liar for gain, or have difficulty understanding reality.  You havn't really lost anything, that's true.  You've simply revealed yourself. 

This isn't the field.  This is a week after the Superbowl and you're still complaining that somebody cheated or the refs were crooked, hoping to get the results of the game changed and win the trophy, despite your claims that the other team cheated have been rejected over and over and over again by the NFL.  That's not leaving it on the field.  That's being either delusional or a poor sport.  How can a person without any sense of justice demand it?  You don't just make up stuff to see if something with stick.  That's called being a liar. 

That is what is happening to the Republican Party and too many Republican voters.  They are revealing themselves.   And people will not forget it.  As long as they live they will not forget this, in the same way some people never got over Vietnam or Watergate. 
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: yossarian22c on December 09, 2020, 08:56:41 PM
I agree this is more than leaving it all on the field, it’s heckling the opposing team during the trophy ceremony and getting close to starting a brawl after the game is over.

I can’t believe how many people are supportive of these actions that threaten the core of our democracy. No evidence of fraud has been shown. History will not be kind to Trump and his enablers. He will go down as the worst president in history and the greatest danger our democracy has faced since the civil war.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on December 09, 2020, 09:08:49 PM
He will go down as the worst president in history and the greatest danger our democracy has faced since the civil war.

Meh.  I can't quite take it that far.  Again, he's either an incompetently greedy and emotional fool, or this great danger to democracy.  I don't think HE'S the danger, and I don't think the danger is that severe.  Maybe a 4 out of 10.  The only problem is that it can be pretty easy slipping from 4 to 10 pretty quickly with the right atmosphere.  The atmosphere is the problem.  That's at about a 6 or 7 out of 10. 



Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 09, 2020, 09:50:51 PM
If Trump loses 9-0 then that helps solidify the legitimacy of Biden's victory. That should be a good thing. As for self-respect I think we can all agree that bird flew the coop a long time ago.

It seems like a lot of these voting changes were done rather hastily and perhaps improperly using the excuse of Covid. So the obvious question is if we were not in the midst of a pandemic would those exact same changes done in the exact same way have been legal? And the next obvious question is if not then are there provisions in the state laws that allow for making those voting changes in the irregular ways they were made because of a pandemic? And if both of those questions are answered in the negative then it seems like there is a good case that the Republicans arguments have some merit. Now is that a case for state supreme courts or for THE Supreme Court? That's another issue. In other words even if the Supreme Court says it doesn't have jurisdiction or it says the plaintiffs don't have standing, that doesn't necessarily mean everything about this election was done properly. Then it just gets political. I'm not sure why Democrats are complaining about that, at least while trying so hard to keep a straight face, after all their efforts to delegitimize the last election using the Russian collusion hoax. Well I guess I do understand why actually, but pot meet kettle.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 09, 2020, 09:58:14 PM
"This isn't the field.  This is a week after the Superbowl and you're still complaining that somebody cheated or the refs were crooked..."

I disagree with that. The gravity challenged lady is warming up but she's not singing yet. This is like those videos where the guy is coasting into the finish line with his hands raised and a spunky challenger comes up from behind and wins it. The celebrating too early situations.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNEEzZXROTo
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DonaldD on December 09, 2020, 10:01:08 PM
Is it fair to ask GOP politicians to put their lives, and their families' lives, at risk in order to resist the president's attacks on democracy? (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/09/us/politics/trump-pennsylvania-electoral-college.html)

Quote
In Pennsylvania, the president’s false claims of a rigged vote may inflame the party base for years to come. One lawmaker said that refusing to back up his assertions would “get my house bombed.”

<snip>

Kim Ward, the Republican majority leader of the Pennsylvania Senate, said the president had called her to declare there was fraud in the voting. But she said she had not been shown the letter to Congress, which was pulled together hastily, before its release.

Asked if she would have signed it, she indicated that the Republican base expected party leaders to back up Mr. Trump’s claims — or to face its wrath.

“If I would say to you, ‘I don’t want to do it,’” she said about signing the letter, “I’d get my house bombed tonight.”
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: yossarian22c on December 09, 2020, 10:28:54 PM
He will go down as the worst president in history and the greatest danger our democracy has faced since the civil war.

Meh.  I can't quite take it that far.  Again, he's either an incompetently greedy and emotional fool, or this great danger to democracy. 

I don't see why it can't be both.

Quote
I don't think HE'S the danger, and I don't think the danger is that severe.  Maybe a 4 out of 10.  The only problem is that it can be pretty easy slipping from 4 to 10 pretty quickly with the right atmosphere.  The atmosphere is the problem.  That's at about a 6 or 7 out of 10.

The danger is he took was was becoming a toxic partisan atmosphere and cranked it up to 11. The danger is he crossed one of the Rubicon's of our democracy in casting doubt on the validity of elections (without any evidence). The danger is 50 million people believe him and his party is scared to stand up to him. Trump isn't the only thing wrong with our system, but he is breaking new ground in all the wrong ways. He strains the system to its limits and I think another 4 years of him would break a lot of them down.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 10, 2020, 12:31:11 AM
If Trump loses 9-0 then that helps solidify the legitimacy of Biden's victory.

I think the people who're still disbelieving in Biden's victory will never be convinced of its legitimacy, no matter what SCOTUS says.

And this suit has nothing to do with fraud claims, btw. It's about the election following its established rules, but other states decided they didn't like how the rules were altered... and they decided this bothered them one month after the election, in only the states that they lost.

If the Supreme Court merely considers this suit legimitimate (even if it turns down the specific case 9-0), it opens the gateway for every future election everywhere in the USA to be selectively challenged in a similar manner months after they actually occur.

Indeed, if SCOTUS decides this is a valid case (even if it turns it down on its merits), why shouldn't Democrats try to find a way to invalidate every congressional election they lost? If the presidential elections can be overturned in this manner, surely the congressional election can likewise, and probably in LOTS of states.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: kidv on December 10, 2020, 01:46:25 AM
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163237/20201209155924009_2020-12-9%20Texas%20Scotus%20Amici%20Brief-%20FINAL.pdf (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163237/20201209155924009_2020-12-9%20Texas%20Scotus%20Amici%20Brief-%20FINAL.pdf)

This is an amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court opposing the Texas filing.  If the Supreme Court denies that Texas has jurisdiction to interfere in another state's mode of choosing its electors, I would expect the reasoning in this brief to be the reasoning behind it, whether the Supreme Court issues an opinion or not.

I'd recommend you guys read it, as an informed electorate and whatnot.  Pretty short, as far as these things go.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on December 10, 2020, 08:47:52 AM

The danger is he took was was becoming a toxic partisan atmosphere and cranked it up to 11. The danger is he crossed one of the Rubicon's of our democracy in casting doubt on the validity of elections (without any evidence). The danger is 50 million people believe him and his party is scared to stand up to him. Trump isn't the only thing wrong with our system, but he is breaking new ground in all the wrong ways. He strains the system to its limits and I think another 4 years of him would break a lot of them down.

I dunno.  The system seems to have withstood him for 4 years alright.  The system seems to be holding up just fine right now.  At least the courts are and institutions. The DOJ and DOD and DOS are all doing the right thing. 

I just don't think we're really close to civil war right now.  I'll admit we're CLOSER than we have been in quite awhile.  But at worst, I see only a bunch of rioting and protesting happening if it doesn't go the MAGA way.  I mean, that happens all the time when Democrats don't get their way, so it's not something that we havn't seen before.  Only difference is this time it will be a bunch of white folk with trucks and guns from flyover country doing to rioting.  Maybe after they rub out a good riot they'll feel better.  It sometimes works for the Democrats. 

To me, to ignite a civil war, you need the ignition source and a hazardous atmosphere.  The ignition source is usually your political leaders, and your atmosphere is your electorate.  Trump is pretty out there, and he's pretty talented about getting the atmosphere more dangerous, but he's not a major spark.  He still hasn't started directly speaking of martial law or civil war.  When that happens, you can crank it up to an 8 or 9.  The atmosphere is the more dangerous part.  People are getting stressed and everybody just needs to take a Colorado vacation and try some 'Tegrity Christmas Special.  I hear it cures coronavirus.  Even then, support from state governments is extremely low.  There is a lot of things working right now and we should be grateful and happy and confident that the system is stable.  No Republican governor is going along with the madness. 
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: yossarian22c on December 10, 2020, 10:17:45 AM
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163237/20201209155924009_2020-12-9%20Texas%20Scotus%20Amici%20Brief-%20FINAL.pdf (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163237/20201209155924009_2020-12-9%20Texas%20Scotus%20Amici%20Brief-%20FINAL.pdf)

This is an amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court opposing the Texas filing.  If the Supreme Court denies that Texas has jurisdiction to interfere in another state's mode of choosing its electors, I would expect the reasoning in this brief to be the reasoning behind it, whether the Supreme Court issues an opinion or not.

I'd recommend you guys read it, as an informed electorate and whatnot.  Pretty short, as far as these things go.

I think the court will reject the Texas case but maybe with more than a denied sentence. I think the reasoning will be the same as the Penn SC used to dismiss the Republican challenge to the mail in ballot law. If you want to litigate the announced rules of an election you must do so before the ballots are cast. You can't wait and see if you like or dislike the results then challenge the rules. So I think the SC maybe steps it up and writes two sentences to reject this case. But they may just say rejected because the case hasn't been before any judge/court. The SC usually doesn't like to be the first court hearing a case.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: yossarian22c on December 10, 2020, 12:25:50 PM
If Trump loses 9-0 then that helps solidify the legitimacy of Biden's victory. That should be a good thing. As for self-respect I think we can all agree that bird flew the coop a long time ago.

The Texas case says gives no evidence about fraud. They are asking the SC to through out the election in selective states based off of a perceived technicality. Not voter fraud. They are asking the SC to nullify votes Biden won because of acts taken prior to the election by elected Republican election officials. You have to admit this would set a horrible precedent for future elections. Maybe officials in Houston or Miami decide they don't like how the polls look and decide to modify a minor rule, then California gets to sue and nullify the ballots of the whole state? That's insane, nonsense, rubbish, and chaos.

So the SC is going to refuse to hear this case and it will do nothing in the minds of 50 million Republicans to legitimize Biden.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DJQuag on December 10, 2020, 01:17:00 PM
But that doesn't explain why the media pretty much didn't cover any third party options this time around, at all. That's a completely separate issue. The mainstream media did it's level best to rig the election as much as possible in favor of Biden.

So, you're saying the mainstream media didn't cover the third party option of "Libertarians", because that would take votes away from the Democrats? That's not usually the party where libertarian votes tend to go in America, is it? They usually go to Republicans.

Frankly I find it shameful that you use the same phrase "rig the election" for this kind of thing that is used by the conspiracy nuts who argue the election was stolen via, you know, actual election fraud.

By doing this, and by putting this sort of comment in an "election fraud" thread, you're also allying yourself with the lying Trump administration and the various nutjobs who believe it. Like Seriati (and unlike wmLambert who seems to genuinely believe the crap he's saying), it's not as if you actually believe the election was stolen, it's not as if you *actually* believe there was actual significant election fraud, you are just doing your best to muddle the issue with irrelevant nonsense. It's okay that Trump says the "election was stolen"... because the media turned people against him, oh no! But that's a bit of a very different accusation he's making that the election was frozen via election fraud. If Trump was just blaming the media for turning the people unfairly against him, NOBODY WOULD *censored*ING CARE.

All in all, rather dishonest of you. A game of "motte and bailey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy)" where the same phrase "rig the election" is used to mean two different things.

Btw, I don't see you complaining how the evangelical & other religious groups supported Trump, nor do I see you complaining that the various religious groups tried to "rig the election" as much as possible in favour of Trump. I suppose it's excused if you have a direct line from god, telling you that Trump is the chosen one. It's okay to "rig the election" then, when God is telling you to.

Is it okay for religious groups to support Trump, or is that somehow not "rigging the election" according to you?

Aris you're one of my absolute favourite posters (funny thing, my other one atm is Lambert because boy howdy does he just bring the MOST entertaining websites to the party. Stuff I never would have come across in the wild.)

And a large part of that is just how sharp your knives get when anyone, right or left wing, starts acting stupid. It's wildly entertaining. Gotten sliced a time or two myself and I know on at least one occasion I definitely had it coming.

What I'm going to suggest right now is that perhaps your knives are getting just a little too sharp. There's, what, 10 if we're lucky regular posters, put the occasionals like me in there for maybe another ten, and then let's be generous and grant us another twenty lurkers who never post. That's fourty people. Ornery.org is not and never will be the hill where the war was won.

We've made a tradition of not attacking people on a personal level and not questioning people's motives. And while your stated opinions on Seriati and Lambert are ones that I might well share, *I actually enjoy hearing their opinions and arguments even when every part of me thinks they're full of *censored*.*

Where the hell else am I going to find reasonably cogent arguments from the other side in a place where theoretically we can all just sit down and talk without trying to kill each other? (I said reasonably. Even if some people don't give out entirely logical arguments there's value to be had in hearing them make their case.)

The absolute worst type of place this could ever become is an echo chamber, and I start to get concerned when one of the minority is outright being called insane and another is being told that he's a lying liar who lies.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DJQuag on December 10, 2020, 01:25:37 PM
On a much less preachy note, lolol at the frigging conservative wing of American politics (Democracy! Freedom! *censored* yeah World Police!) getting so very worked up over

A) More of us voted? They were probably all plebs! The tragedy!
B) Let's make it easier for eligible voters to vote?!? Back in my grandfather's day, he had to walk uphill past Voldemort probably in the snow to get to the voting booth and he didn't complain and neither did the conservatives. That stuff worked back then and it can work now. PS Grandaddy was black sure that didn't make a difference though.

PSPS Grandaddy wasn't actually Black was just trying to pull the joke off.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: kidv on December 10, 2020, 03:21:16 PM
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163379/20201210144443769_Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20-%20Motion%20and%20Br.%20of%20Amici%20DC%20et%20al.pdf (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163379/20201210144443769_Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20-%20Motion%20and%20Br.%20of%20Amici%20DC%20et%20al.pdf)  For all you literate people out there, here's the amici brief from 22 other states opposing Texas.  This seems like a clear  sane summary of the position that Texas does not have any business interfering in other states' sovereignty, a pretty quick 14 pages.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163367/20201210142206254_Pennsylvania%20Opp%20to%20Bill%20of%20Complaint%20v.FINAL.pdf (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163367/20201210142206254_Pennsylvania%20Opp%20to%20Bill%20of%20Complaint%20v.FINAL.pdf)
 For reading meat eaters out there, this is Pennsylvania's formal response, giving an in depth response to the Texas claims.  I think the clearest-eyed point inside is the final analysis of the standard that Texas would need to meet to receive an injunction, and how Texas fails to represent that standard correctly or meet any of the elements of that standard.  Reading those four pages (37-40 of the pdf, 27-30 of the numbered brief) would probably be good for all citizens.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on December 10, 2020, 03:29:34 PM
Notice how the lawsuits that have had time to prepare all seem to have glaring errors while those responding in just a day or two have correct grammar and spelling and references.  it is almost like real lawyers wrote them, not some dream team.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DonaldD on December 10, 2020, 03:45:35 PM
Wow... so many words, and so much effort, going into opposing a sham process that was initially kicked off for the sole purpose of signalling to the president of the USA that the Texas AG is requesting a federal pardon.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DJQuag on December 10, 2020, 06:01:21 PM
No. Come on. Just...no.

You know my guilty  pleasure? Deffo one hundred percent Hell's Kitchen. I myself know it's dumb but that's why it's the guilty pleasure.


And my favourite part of the show isn't when Ramsey completely loses his *censored*, it's when he starts quietly muttering the above, looking them in the eye. Like a piece of his soul has just been removed and sent to Alpha Centauri because someone brought him a raw steak after he chewed them out for it being too well done five minutes earlier.

https://www.mediaite.com/news/just-in-more-than-100-gop-house-members-sign-amicus-brief-backing-texas-effort-to-overturn-biden-victory-in-supreme-court/

These people are absolutely shameless. I literally muttered to myself no, haha, they're just having a laugh.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DJQuag on December 10, 2020, 06:07:09 PM
If the constituents of these people are demanding they do this then we apparently have an issue, because what they're asking is to use interstate judicial law to literally overturn election results. Christ, the Confederates could only wish they had the balls to go for that argument when *they* didn't win the presidential election.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: kidv on December 10, 2020, 06:56:48 PM
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163437/20201210163842796_City%20of%20Detroit%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163437/20201210163842796_City%20of%20Detroit%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf)

And the briefs keep coming!  Detroit filed its own brief, feeling put upon to defend its honor.  This filing is neat because it is 111 pages (ok, ok, lots of attachments, whew).  Interesting that you've got one stop shopping for presenting the facts and normal procedure concerning Detroit absentee vote counting which led the courts there to reject the witnesses and affidavits put forth by Guiliani, including the memorable Ms. Carone, as being non-credible and not understanding the procedures which were occurring.  If you want to have a quick read of the affidavit of Christopher Thomas (pdf pp. 69-83), you get a nice clear description and response to the issues and specific concerns of the affidavits and witnesses, based on facts and not just a hand wave that "these people are loony."  There's a cogent and respectful response to every claim raised, with citation to the actual numbers and procedures processed, down to the claims of somebody named "Pope" being typed in when its already in the system [spoiler alert- the precinct has 3 voters named Pope, one of whom had already voted.]

So it's comforting to see actual facts and citations which can make one feel comfortable with the processes in place, and allow us to have faith in the decisions made by courts based on that information.

I guess if you're really an information hound, you'd read Detroit's actual brief (pdf pp. 6-27), which seems to do a clear job of laying out the facts in the record, so that Detroit does not get misrepresented.  Again it's nice sometimes to see people who care about their job and the job of others working to make sure people who did a lot of work to try to make a difficult task come off well get credit for their work.  It's nice to see the descriptions of sane people (Republicans and Democrats) working together in advance to conduct an election together.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DonaldD on December 11, 2020, 10:11:27 AM
At least there are some high level Republicans who still have the courage of their convictions... on the Texas attempt to subvert the electoral will on Pennsylvanians, Michiganders and the other battleground states that supported Biden:

Quote
Idaho's Republican attorney general, Lawrence Wasden, issued a statement distancing himself from Paxton's case, saying: "I am declining to join this effort. As is sometimes the case, the legally correct decision may not be the politically convenient decision. But my responsibility is to the State of Idaho and the rule of law."
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on December 11, 2020, 10:22:12 AM
At least Ohio's AG did not join. We had 5 House members who were part of the 106.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DonaldD on December 11, 2020, 10:30:34 AM
It's now all about 2022 and fundraising: the GOP has spent so long letting Trump whip up the base with disinformation and riding his coattails, and now that so much of the GOP electorate has basically bought into the insanity, GOP politicians feel they simply cannot be seen to be rational on so many topics. Those 106, and the earlier 17 AGs - they know better.  They know there is no winning the Texas suit, and they don't even want to win it.  They just can't let go of the tiger's tail, and they can't be seen to be letting go, even..
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: rightleft22 on December 11, 2020, 11:07:21 AM
I preferred the illusion when I believed that some leaders had the moral courage to sacrifice for the greater good even when doing so goes against their self or even party interest
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Seriati on December 11, 2020, 05:09:01 PM
Is it proof of anything?  No.  But many of you are too good at statistics not to see issues with this. 

I must not be that good at statistics.  Because I still don't believe that the 2004 Redsox cheated to win the ALCS.  Despite being one hell of a statistical outlier.

If you tallied the number of sexual partners I've had, per year, by year, you would find some real statistical outliers between graduating college and marriage.  I mean some real fishy numbers.  Like, how do you go from zero zero zero zero zero, year after year, then you put up these kinds of big numbers, and then you drop to one one one one one one one.  Definitely a conspiracy.  I smell fraud.  Better call Giuliani.

Yes, I agree you're not that good at statistics.  A study of your sexual partners has an N of 1.  Now if you had a study of your entire age group for those years and you could see a single year that was dramatically outside the trend line?  It'd be pretty good indicator of a place to look for something influenced that year.    In fact, it could be a decisive indicator depending on confidence.

But even if we had a confidence that approached 99%, it could still be that 1 in 100 event.  It's true that not likely is not the same as impossible, but unlikely enough is definitely grounds for deep suspicion and verification.  Except by "coincindence" we can't actually verify because someone (cough.. DNC) made sure to change the rules to ensure that we couldn't do so.

Quote
I guess it means that Donald Trump truly was simultaneously the most beloved and hated President in the history of the United States.  Is that hard to believe?

Yes actually.  But you'd think that if Trump was as hated as you believed it would have translated into passion for Biden, which never did appear.  It's an odd result.

Quote
By the way, the statistical outlier and historic first arguments for "there is something fishy here" work against Trump too, since he got record numbers of total votes for a Republican, I believe.

I agree.  One possibility is that there was massive pro-Trump fraud that occurred, but for that to have happened it would mean that all those Democratic districts where Trump's support improved in certain Demographics would have been the ones to do it.  The implementation for Trump is much harder to have accomplished. 

Now if only we had a national media that was using it's resources to look into who the election manipulation supported, rather than doing everything they can to dismiss and even censure it we may know.  Again, there's zero question that if Trump had won they'd be doing the exact opposite of what they are doing.  If you want to know the truth demand they do their jobs.

Quote
Quote
It means that 70% of eligible adults voted in CA.  That's improbably bigger than the 58.7% that voted in the election with a chance to elect the first female President.  That's improbably bigger than the 59.22% that voted in the election of the country's first black president (a speaker that literally inspired people to swoon), or the 55.47% that showed up to give him a second term.

Again, this premise rests on the idea that Donald Trump could not possibly be more hated than Hillary Clinton was loved.  Totally improbable.  Hillary and L'Orange are such likeable people.  Beloved, really.  Beloved.

Lol, and Obama?  Are you pretending that people were not literally swooning over him?  Hillary whether you want to downplay it or not, was the first female candidate for President to have a real shot a winning.  The passion in those elections was ridiculously high.  Not to mention on your "hatred" caused turn out theory, Trump was in that election and Hillary was hated at least as much.  It's not a credible claim.

Quote
I see no point to any of this.  Did Egyptians really build the pyramids?  Could the Nazis really cook 6 million Jews with only 3 ovens in 3 years?  Could Lee Harvey Oswald really make that shot?

I see.  So your position is that even if there was election fraud resulting in a stolen election we shouldn't look for it?  Even if one party deliberately undermined any rules that would have had a chance (and not even a good one) of catching it, that we should still have to prove it to the Nth degree?

I've been asking this question for years, but I want an answer now.  How do you prove fraud in a secret ballot election?  And eliminate any use of ID or apparently any comparison of signatures of the alleged voter.

How can anyone trust losing in a system where there's no way to catch cheaters?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 11, 2020, 05:25:13 PM
Yes actually.  But you'd think that if Trump was as hated as you believed it would have translated into passion for Biden, which never did appear.

That is utter nonsense.

For example I hate Trump thoroughly, while Biden leaves me completely uninterested.

All your rest of your post is utter nonsense and lies too, btw. For example you actually pretend that Trump's is unique in increasing votes in districts controlled by Democrats, while not mentioning how Biden increased votes in distrincts controlled by Republicans.

Let's check Lauderdale County, Alabama. That's just the first Alabama county I picked on the map, because it's literally the first on the map of Alabama.

2016: 27,735 to Trump, 9,877 to Clinton
2020: 31,721 to Trump, 11,915 to Biden

Wow, a 14% increase to Trump's votes, and a 20% increase in the Democratic votes.

That's in a deep red district, in a deep red state.

It seems according to you, that deep red district in the deep red state also supposedly cheated to increase the Democrats' numbers by 20%. The thing you said would makes a fraud's "implementation" difficult for Trump. How did the Democrats manage it then?

You're spewing nonsense and misinformation in order to deceive anyone who isn't interested in spending 5 minutes to debunk your lies.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DJQuag on December 11, 2020, 06:31:34 PM
"How do you prove fraud in a secret ballot election?  And eliminate any use of ID or apparently any comparison of signatures of the alleged voter.

How can anyone trust losing in a system where there's no way to catch cheaters?"

Didn't make history a major in uni so I could be wrong, but can you tell us how conservative states protected against said hypothetical silent ballot abuse?

If they didn't, can you explain how the republic lived and prospered for these 240 odd years?

How have things changed so much that now it's a national emergency? Beyond, of course, your side losing.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: TheDeamon on December 11, 2020, 11:11:18 PM
At least there are some high level Republicans who still have the courage of their convictions... on the Texas attempt to subvert the electoral will on Pennsylvanians, Michiganders and the other battleground states that supported Biden:

Quote
Idaho's Republican attorney general, Lawrence Wasden, issued a statement distancing himself from Paxton's case, saying: "I am declining to join this effort. As is sometimes the case, the legally correct decision may not be the politically convenient decision. But my responsibility is to the State of Idaho and the rule of law."

Oh you should have seen the rest of his statement. His issue with the suit was that he viewed it as a threat to state's rights and sovereignty for Idaho. Not so much that he disagrees with the rest of the legal justifications for the suit.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DonaldD on December 11, 2020, 11:20:51 PM
Yes... That's what he meant by the "legally correct" decision.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: TheDeamon on December 11, 2020, 11:22:43 PM
Didn't make history a major in uni so I could be wrong, but can you tell us how conservative states protected against said hypothetical silent ballot abuse?

If they didn't, can you explain how the republic lived and prospered for these 240 odd years?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot#United_States

According to wiki, the United States didn't even start to use a secret ballot until the 1880's. Even more amusing, the voters brought their own ballot to the voting booth, often provided to them by local political party officials or local (partisan) newspapers. It wasn't until 1890 that states started generating their own non-partisan ballots with South Carolina(1950) and Georgia(1922) being the last two to start producing their own ballots.

Quote
How have things changed so much that now it's a national emergency? Beyond, of course, your side losing.

Already addressed this previously, not a "national emergency" but it certainly is a political circus.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: TheDeamon on December 11, 2020, 11:24:38 PM
Yes... That's what he meant by the "legally correct" decision.

Others might interpret that differently. It's only "legally correct" insofar as he doesn't want to see a legal precedent set where California, Washington, Oregon, and Nevada can start suing Idaho for anything under the sun.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Seriati on December 14, 2020, 01:16:43 PM
Yes actually.  But you'd think that if Trump was as hated as you believed it would have translated into passion for Biden, which never did appear.

That is utter nonsense.

For example I hate Trump thoroughly, while Biden leaves me completely uninterested.

And if you had voted for either it would be a felony, would it not?  You're not even permitted to provide a thing of value to a campaign.  It's unusual for an underwhelming candidate to beat one that is inspiring to people.  Even based on the idea that the passion of hatred was enough to win out over the passion of support it's unusual.  That level of passion should have shown up in rallies even if they were there just to scream about Trump and not really to support Biden.

Quote
All your rest of your post is utter nonsense and lies too, btw.

That's the second time you've falsely called me a liar.  I suggest either you prove your words or you consider the terms of service about personal attacks.

Quote
For example you actually pretend that Trump's is unique in increasing votes in districts controlled by Democrats, while not mentioning how Biden increased votes in distrincts controlled by Republicans.

I didn't pretend either thing.  I said if Trump was the one that engaged in wide spread fraud, them based on the demographic results he would have had to have done it through districts controlled by Democrats.  The statistical anomalies, and the reality of who controls what, point to fraud having been engendered to support Biden to the extent it occurred.  But you picked Alabama for an example, though you didn't bother to do the comparable analysis.

Quote
Let's check Lauderdale County, Alabama. That's just the first Alabama county I picked on the map, because it's literally the first on the map of Alabama.

2016: 27,735 to Trump, 9,877 to Clinton
2020: 31,721 to Trump, 11,915 to Biden

Wow, a 14% increase to Trump's votes, and a 20% increase in the Democratic votes.

That's in a deep red district, in a deep red state.

In 2016, Alabama had 2.078 million votes cast, in 2020 it had 2.317 million votes cast.  In a state where the the population increased by 50k people from 4.85 million to 4.9 million over 4 years.  Alabama removed over 900k people from their voting rolls in that 4 year period and yet had a net increase in registered votes of almost 1.3 million.  https://www.sos.alabama.gov/newsroom/alabamas-35-million-registered-voters-continues-shatter-state-records (https://www.sos.alabama.gov/newsroom/alabamas-35-million-registered-voters-continues-shatter-state-records)  They got to 94% registration of eligible voters.

So, Alabama had a 60% increase in registered voters.  That led to an 11% increase in votes cast in the 2020 election.  If you want more convincing evidence on what going to nearly full registration can do you have it right there.  60% increase in registration netted 11% more voters.  In that election you had a record number of absentee ballots cast - just over 300k, which actually works out to almost 13% of the votes.

It's interesting that in Alabama - a deep red state, where the Democrats managed to steal a Senate seat (not because of voter fraud, just media shenanigans), where the RNC was fired up to show up in the election, Biden managed to increase over Hillary's vote totals by almost the same amount as Trump increased his vote totals.  One might have expected Biden to perform worse in Alabama than even Hillary, yet Biden got 130k more votes than Hillary (Hillary got 34.5% while Biden got 36.7%, while Trump got 135k more (62.9% to 62.2%).  Trump did worse in a state where is loved.

That seems an odd result to me, yet it's a result that would be expected if the absentee voter process was being manipulated to help Biden.

Again it's not proof.   

Quote
It seems according to you, that deep red district in the deep red state also supposedly cheated to increase the Democrats' numbers by 20%. The thing you said would makes a fraud's "implementation" difficult for Trump. How did the Democrats manage it then?

Absentee ballots are the only way to do it Alabama.  Part of that increase in registration came specifically from implemented a voter ID law that held up in court.  Effectively, Alabama did exactly what all states should have done in cleaning up its voter rolls.  The only easy fraud left was the classic scam through manipulation of absentee ballots.  Plenty of quotes by the way from Dems in state of exactly the push they made to use and manipulate absentee ballots.

Quote
You're spewing nonsense and misinformation in order to deceive anyone who isn't interested in spending 5 minutes to debunk your lies.

Maybe you should spend a few hours educating yourself and then take a crack at "debunking my lies," cause 5 minutes and a bunch of unfounded assertions and soundbites isn't doing it.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: yossarian22c on December 14, 2020, 01:44:03 PM
It's interesting that in Alabama - a deep red state, where the Democrats managed to steal a Senate seat (not because of voter fraud, just media shenanigans), where the RNC was fired up to show up in the election, Biden managed to increase over Hillary's vote totals by almost the same amount as Trump increased his vote totals.  One might have expected Biden to perform worse in Alabama than even Hillary, yet Biden got 130k more votes than Hillary (Hillary got 34.5% while Biden got 36.7%, while Trump got 135k more (62.9% to 62.2%).  Trump did worse in a state where is loved.

That seems an odd result to me, yet it's a result that would be expected if the absentee voter process was being manipulated to help Biden.

Again it's not proof.   

Why would anyone bother to try to rig an election for Biden in Alabama? Who is going to commit a felony for no reason? Alabama wasn't in play, it doesn't have enough electors to swing anything. You just need to realize that Trump drove turnout for both sides.

If Democrats were rigging the process everywhere, which you must think if you believe they were bothering with Alabama then shouldn't the Trump team been able to catch them somewhere?

Do you suspect fraud in small rural districts? They went really heavily to Trump. Districts with 50,000 voters get a lot less scrutiny than the big metro areas. A lot easier to cheat in without as many people looking over your shoulder. All the local officials are Republicans. Do you understand every argument you have put forward works just as well to support Trump committing fraud somewhere?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DonaldD on December 14, 2020, 02:14:36 PM
Why would anyone bother to try to rig an election for Biden in Alabama? Who is going to commit a felony for no reason?

QFT

Trump took Alabama by 62% to 37%.  No amount of fraud was going to turn Alabama blue.  So the argument is that Democratic Party supporters in Alabama were somehow so smart that they were able to implement a process to cast tens of thousands of fraudulent votes in Republican controlled counties without once getting caught, yet were not smart enough to calculate that this massive and risky effort would have no effect on the outcome.  They were so smart, and the conspiracy so well controlled, that they got away with this massive fraud, yet too stupid to realize that the risk taken had a non-existent upside.

If anything, this is evidence that whoever is making the argument hasn't thought it through.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 14, 2020, 09:02:17 PM
That seems an odd result to me, yet it's a result that would be expected if the absentee voter process was being manipulated to help Biden.

Everything seems like an "odd result" to you, as long as it helps sell Trump's narrative, but every single word you say has been utter nonsense.

You claim vast Democrat fraud in Alabama? Good, *censored*ing prove it! There should exist enough non-Democrat judges and other officials in Alabama for there to be an honest investigation of your utterly stupid claims.

Except that in other posts we've told that it was only those battleground states that had 'strange' results, in fact some of those comments *depended* on only those battleground states having 'strange' results compared to the honest non-battleground states which supposedly serve as a baseline of what a normal result looks like.

But you've sold your soul to a villain and a conman, so who cares? You're not convincing anyone, you're just illustrating the moral depravity of Trumpists.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on December 21, 2020, 07:03:16 PM
Massive voter fraud found in PA

The dead vote.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/officials-finally-found-case-dead-225210492.html
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Seriati on December 21, 2020, 10:40:16 PM
Why would anyone bother to try to rig an election for Biden in Alabama?

Mail in voter fraud is a gift that gives over multiple election cycles.  Tipping a single nursing home worker in every district has a huge cumulative impact.  This year with increased mail in voting, the opportunity set was just much larger.

I don't think anyone set up a brand new mail in voter fraud program in Alabama to specifically help Biden in this election.  I think that existing manipulation systems were used and magnified by the increased opportunity.

Quote
Who is going to commit a felony for no reason? Alabama wasn't in play, it doesn't have enough electors to swing anything.

It isn't for no reason, once you start the cycle stopping it raises suspicion.  If a nursing home has a 90% turnout in past elections but this one only had a 25% turnout, and then it's back to 90% it's a red flag. 

Why don't you read something on it?   There are accounts out there from people who describe actually doing it.

Most of the of the complaints you guys raise are nonsensical objections, kind of like complaining that water isn't wet cause you don't get wet when you touch the water on your tv screen.

I mentioned mail in fraud in Alabama because it's the only fraud that can still be easily run there with a low chance of getting caught.  Fraud involving voting machines takes a much higher sophistication and level of coordination.  Fraud at voting centers generates anomalies that can be tracked though "proving" it even with videos and affadavits is apparently not possible.

Quote
You just need to realize that Trump drove turnout for both sides.

Certainly possible, though unusual enough for the reasons cited above to warrant investigation.

Quote
If Democrats were rigging the process everywhere, which you must think if you believe they were bothering with Alabama then shouldn't the Trump team been able to catch them somewhere?

People get caught every single election cycle.  If that was all you are "looking" for (you're not really looking at all though), it'd be done.

Catching them somewhere is different from tying them into some kind of coordinated response or to numbers "large enough" to make a difference.  There may not even be a "coordinated" effort.  How do you show a "conspiracy" if none exists but instead tens of thousands of people of limited morals come to the same conclusion about the ease of cheating in their own interests and then do so?

Don't believe it happens?  Has there EVER been even a local election where someone didn't steal signs of the candidate they oppose?  Put up signs in violation of election rules?  Heck, I'm willing to bet you know someone personally that's cheated in an election and that you may know you know.

Quote
Do you suspect fraud in small rural districts?

Sure, as I mentioned before, they don't provide the scale for the truly large operations.  Everything I said about 10's of thousands of bad actors would need to be hundreds of thousands (or more) to have the same effect through small districts.

Quote
They went really heavily to Trump.

I guaranty that someone somewhere also cast a fraudulent vote for Trump.

Quote
Districts with 50,000 voters get a lot less scrutiny than the big metro areas. A lot easier to cheat in without as many people looking over your shoulder.

Please provide evidence to support this.  I flat out say it is false, and I don't think you can demonstrate it.  Why don't you take a look and see if you can.

Quote
All the local officials are Republicans.

Why don't you point out the district where this is the case?  The number of districts that are uniformly Democrat is far higher, and many of the districts are not just "local official" controlled by the Democrats they have a nearly complete lack of any Republican voters. 

In Philly, for example, that means they don't even have any opportunity for legal Republican poll watchers as the law there requires poll watchers be a voter in the district.  I think I pointed out above something like a quarter of the districts in Philly had a only hand full of registered Republicans.  Can you find a significant number of districts where the reverse is true?  Bet you can't find enough to match the number of voters in those Philly districts.  Maybe you'll find a couple in the middle of nowhere with a hundred registered voters all related to each other.  But it doesn't remotely compare to nearly a quarter of the districts in Philly being so one sided as to be virtually impossible to have Republican oversight, and you know it doesn't.

Quote
Do you understand every argument you have put forward works just as well to support Trump committing fraud somewhere?

I even pointed out the possibility several times (and why it was less likely). 

I'm disappointed in the reading comprehension on this thread and even more disappointed in the wilful blindness.  You don't have to believe this election was stolen to get educated on this topic.  It doesn't make you a bad Democrat to actually care about voter fraud.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Seriati on December 21, 2020, 10:43:59 PM
QFT

Quote
So the argument is that Democratic Party supporters in Alabama were somehow so smart that they were able to implement a process to cast tens of thousands of fraudulent votes in Republican controlled counties without once getting caught, yet were not smart enough to calculate that this massive and risky effort would have no effect on the outcome.

QFS(tupidity).  Mail-in voting fraud is not risky at all.  The most common forms are next to impossible to catch as they take place nearly completely outside of the observation of the chain of custody. 

You've yet to prove otherwise by explaining how you would personally catch it.  Until you do, all you're doing is repeating talking points written for you by people who do know it occurs but want you to believe otherwise.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DonaldD on December 22, 2020, 12:20:19 AM
Yes, it is stupid to think that widespread, organized mail in registration fraud and voting fraud, or the hijacking of others' registrations, would go unnoticed.

But that isn't what I was agreeing with anyway.  Think harder.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: yossarian22c on December 22, 2020, 09:28:23 AM
Why would anyone bother to try to rig an election for Biden in Alabama?

Mail in voter fraud is a gift that gives over multiple election cycles.  Tipping a single nursing home worker in every district has a huge cumulative impact.  This year with increased mail in voting, the opportunity set was just much larger.

I don't think anyone set up a brand new mail in voter fraud program in Alabama to specifically help Biden in this election.  I think that existing manipulation systems were used and magnified by the increased opportunity.

I agree something like this probably happened somewhere in the country. But if you investigate it wouldn't be that hard to track down that it happened (note this is different than it being easy to get enough evidence to prove in a court of law who did it and why). Go to nursing homes, spend a couple days talking to people who voted. If they aren't able to tell you they voted or are non communitive in some way and their family didn't vote according to their wishes then you have evidence of a crime. Then you hunt down who voted for them. Trump has $200 million dollars, he can afford to spend the time tracking down statistical anomalies or just random samples of voters to see if anything fishy turns up. He won't do this, the $200 million is to bail out his businesses. I never thought someone could turn losing an election into a $200 million pay day.

Do you realize that you think that it is too difficult and high risk for there to be fraud in rural/Republican areas but you simultaneously think that it is entirely low risk for someone to travel around a state bribing nursing home workers and trusting them to pull off undetectable voter fraud schemes? And why would Democrats be more likely to perpetuate this fraud than Republicans? Particularly in Alabama, small scale voter fraud operations are most effective in primaries. The only primaries that usually matter in Alabama are the Republican ones, so if anyone was going to take the time, effort, and risk to set up a voter fraud scheme it is much more likely to be the Republicans in Alabama.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Seriati on December 23, 2020, 01:02:43 PM
Go to nursing homes, spend a couple days talking to people who voted.

That's a white privilege response.  I routinely talk to people who have to sue, even though they have no money, to get visitation rights to their own family members at certain nursing homes let alone to strangers. Many homes are in violation of state regulations and do everything they can to prevent access.  The idea that you can just walk in to some of these places is insane.  Even in many nicer nursing homes becoming a volunteer - which is the only way you could get in - is a process that may involve years and one where you'll be kicked out if you talk politics.  Would you even accept a Project Veritas video if they went undercover.

Assuming you do get in, and it's been done.  Then what?  They do and have found instances of people that said they voted and can't articulate who they voted for.  It's viewed as proof of nothing at all.  Even if they say they voted for candidate A, there's no way in a secret ballot vote to verify their vote went to candidate A.  Read the accounts of those who've done this and seen it first hand and then tell me you can catch it and prove it happened as you think.

Quote
Trump has $200 million dollars, he can afford to spend the time tracking down statistical anomalies or just random samples of voters to see if anything fishy turns up. He won't do this...

There is literally no such statistical study that you'd accept as proof and none the courts will either.  Why on earth should he waste millions of dollars conducting research that will be accepted by no one?

Quote
Do you realize that you think that it is too difficult and high risk for there to be fraud in rural/Republican areas but you simultaneously think that it is entirely low risk for someone to travel around a state bribing nursing home workers and trusting them to pull off undetectable voter fraud schemes?

Reading comprehension.  I never said that its higher risk or too difficult to use fraud in Republican regions.  I said the benefits from fraud in small districts are far less and it takes far more of them to achieve the goal.  How many people are involved in the official capacity of 200 districts that have collectively 100k votes, versus 10 districts that have 100k votes?   4 times? 10 times? 20 times?  There's a lot more oversight per vote.  How many fraudulent votes can you add to a district of 500 before it's a clear statistical anomoly?  How many to a district of 10k? 

In either place long term fraud operations can move that trend, so maybe there's a nursing home in the district of 500, with 80 "voters."  That's go show in their trends pretty clearly.  It's going to show a lot more clearly than 500 or even a 1000 votes that are manipulated long term is a district of 10k voters.  Heck, in some of those districts where the voters themselves are apathetic and hard to track down, long term fraud is never detectable.  What district of 500 voters has material numbers of voters that can't be tracked down?

Quote
And why would Democrats be more likely to perpetuate this fraud than Republicans?

Democrats believe the ends justify the means, believe that all Republicans are inherently racist, sexist, other-ist, and that Trump is the reincarnation of Hitler.  I know dozens of Democrats for whom the idea that the legal process of voting is more important that removing Trump from office would not even process.  I know even more that believe that any time a Democrat loses an election it was stolen - that's the whole proof standard - if a Democrat loses it was stolen. 

Heck, people on this board are more interested in dismissing the possibility of voter fraud than falsifying that it occurred.  Russian interference was a mega story that "stole the election" yet big media and big tech censoring Republicans and even suppressing legitimate negative news on Biden is not?  Blatant and open election manipulation by your betters and that is okay?  I guaranty, 100% guaranty, that if the manipulation was pro-Trump you'd never never never accept it.  In your pursuit of statistical testing, its been widely shown that significant enough numbers of Biden voters have said they would not have voted for Biden if they had been informed about things like Hunter's problems - by the Russian theft standard you guys have advocated that alone is enough to prove Biden only won because of a manipulated and stolen election.  Doesn't that therefore entitle Republicans to consider Biden exactly with the same measure of legitimacy that Democrats have accorded to Trump?  Calling him an illegitimate President?

Show me where there's a principle you are defending and applying consistently in both directions, where you're trying to prevent fraudulent votes and how (usually there's just a dismissal that they are material, which conveniently relies on the fact that it is impossible to prove systematic fraud in a secret ballot system exactly because you can never confirm that a vote recorded matches the vote intended by the voter and not on any reasonable falsification).

Quote
Particularly in Alabama, small scale voter fraud operations are most effective in primaries. The only primaries that usually matter in Alabama are the Republican ones, so if anyone was going to take the time, effort, and risk to set up a voter fraud scheme it is much more likely to be the Republicans in Alabama.

I didn't pick Alabama, Aris did.  If you did your homework (or even read the summary I provided), Alabama has something like 94% voter registration penetration (I think 98% for minority voters).  I'd be stunned if that isn't the highest in the country.  They got to that number with a real ID law that was not repealed by DNC activists in the court.  Look above, they removed over a million voters that were on their previous voter rolls as invalid and still increased their total registrations massively.  There's a reason that I said that in Alabama the only easy fraud left is mail in votes, and that's specifically based on their actual voting systems and rules.

Voter fraud in Alabama is unlikely to influence many state wide elections (though it could have elected Doug Jones, not saying it did), but it can be decisive in any number of local elections.  Having an incentive to control the county prosecutor or even the people who fund the school board is a direct and very personal incentive that influences people to take these kinds of steps, that doesn't mean they don't also have national political preferences.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: yossarian22c on December 23, 2020, 01:31:07 PM
Trump has $200 million dollars, he can afford to spend the time tracking down statistical anomalies or just random samples of voters to see if anything fishy turns up. He won't do this...

There is literally no such statistical study that you'd accept as proof and none the courts will either.  Why on earth should he waste millions of dollars conducting research that will be accepted by no one?


Sure there is. Because when you go talk to the voters, you either find they don't exist, or claim they didn't vote. Talk to 10,000 voters, if 500 will swear in court they didn't vote then you have evidence that 0.5% of the vote was fraudulent.

I agree there is nothing in that I would accept as proof that Democrats perpetrated the fraud and Biden is illegitimate. I would accept finding that 500 people claiming a form of identity theft via voting is evidence of a crime. Likewise if you found 500 people who were dead and voted that is evidence of a crime. Show there is a crime, then we can target laws that hope to close those loopholes*.

I'm not going to take your word that there is a massive amount of crime going on because you say so. I believe there are small instances of fraud that occur in every election but nothing on the scale your talking about.

*I don't like ballot harvesting. I prefer in person voting. I prefer at least a month of early voting. I prefer lots of polling places so you don't need wait longer to vote than to buy groceries.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Seriati on December 23, 2020, 04:45:30 PM
So, even if there is fraud your position is just, too bad, not changing the "results."

Again, and it's patently demonstrable from any in-person survey, if you randomly selected 10k voters in an urban environment you will never get responses from a significant portion of them no matter how you follow up.  Using 10k voters that you can contact will hopelessly bias the "results."

Not being able to find voters is itself evidence, and  voters that can't be located or are unwilling to participate are a group that I would expect would be a great risk for being voters whose votes have been cast on a long term fraudulent basis.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DonaldD on January 03, 2021, 02:34:36 PM
“Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is, the data you have is wrong.”

"I just want to find 11,780 votes"

As for the thread topic, and what can be done about this ongoing attempt to disenfranchise millions of voters... it all depends on the appetite to prosecute a former president.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on January 03, 2021, 06:53:01 PM
And if he finds them what will he do about the other states that he lost?

We now have 3 parties.  Dem, Rep and Trumpist and the Trumpist are willing to commit treason to keep their guy in power.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on January 03, 2021, 07:41:12 PM
Is this a state crime?  Could the State prosecute Trump for Election Fraud?

Maybe.

GA Code § 21-2-604 (2015)  is Criminal solicitation to commit election fraud

I havn't looked deep into this.  But the main problem I see is intent.  I don't think that the President of Perfect Calls really intended for the GA Sec of State of commit fraud.  I think L'Orange REALLY BELIEVES that Georgia is incompetent and that the election was stolen from him there.  He goes over and over all the different little conspiracy theories concerning all the different ways that he could have lost votes in Georgia.  Dead people voting.  People out of state voting.  Fake ballots.  He has all these numbers. 

He really believes it.  He's really trying to sell Raffensperger on it.  I mean, he's still a moron and a dick, but I think he really really believes it. 

I don't think he's criminal.  I think the President is really insane.  He's chosen to believe a set of theories that have been shot down in court over and over again.  He's getting fed new ones all the time.  He's surrounded by sycophants.  He's *censored*ing nuts.  His primary buttress to his beliefs is pointing out how many people he had a rallys.  He's trying to make an argument straight to Raffensperger that has been shot down in court after court after court. 

He's not knowingly with intent trying to solicit fraud.  He really believes it.  He's *censored*ing crazy.  He's cannot comprehend reality anymore.  And he's taking millions of Americans with him.


This is kinda worse than him simply being a criminal.  It's easier to deal with.  But what is he going to do next?   
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on January 04, 2021, 03:37:25 AM
He really believes it.  He's really trying to sell Raffensperger on it.  I mean, he's still a moron and a dick, but I think he really really believes it.

Possibly. But the really successful liars do develop the skill of making it sound as they believe the crap they're saying, it's not like movies where the director gives you tells that this person is lying so as to not confuse the audience. It can be hard to tell the difference between a truly delusional person or simply a good liar.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on January 04, 2021, 09:37:07 AM
Possibly. But the really successful liars do develop the skill of making it sound as they believe the crap they're saying, it's not like movies where the director gives you tells that this person is lying so as to not confuse the audience. It can be hard to tell the difference between a truly delusional person or simply a good liar.

Look, dude.  I've honed my lie detection ability through hundreds of hours of playing L.A. Noir.  I'm better than an FBI machine at this point.  I detect no lie from The Perfect Caller. 


Really, though, I have no idea.  Maybe he doesn't believe the crap he's trying to sell.  But the flip side to that is that it would be difficult to prove in court.  Of course, I don't even know if proving that he doesn't believe it matters.  Maybe intent isn't critical in proving Criminal Solicitation to Commit Election Fraud.  But at that point we're stretching things and how far does it stretch?  Would Gore and Abrams be guilty if intent didn't matter?  I have no idea.  I know a bunch of law school professors are screaming right now, but they started screaming when Lindsay Graham was calling up Raffensperger. 

I'm not a lawyer.  I have no clue.  I might have a better opinion after reading some lawyers whose judgement I trust. 
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on January 04, 2021, 09:49:24 AM
I don't know if what he did is convictable either, also not a lawyer.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on January 04, 2021, 10:41:31 AM
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-election-defense-secretaries-public-letter/index.html

Quote
All 10 living former US defense secretaries declared that the US presidential election is over in a forceful public letter published in The Washington Post on Sunday as President Donald Trump continues to deny his election loss to Joe Biden.

The letter -- signed by Dick Cheney, James Mattis, Mark Esper, Leon Panetta, Donald Rumsfeld, William Cohen, Chuck Hagel, Robert Gates, William Perry and Ashton Carter -- amounts to a remarkable show of force against Trump's subversion efforts just days before Congress is set to count Electoral College votes.

Deep Stayt Military Industrial Complex

Quote
"Civilian and military officials who direct or carry out such measures would be accountable, including potentially facing criminal penalties, for the grave consequences of their actions on our republic," the letter states.

Cohen, a Republican who served as Secretary of Defense under President Bill Clinton, told CNN's Ana Cabrera on "Newsroom" shortly after the letter was published that the "highly unusual" step was warranted given the "unconstitutional path" Trump has taken the country.

"It was really our attempt to call out to the American people. We believe all of them are patriotic. They've been led down a path by President Trump, which is an unconstitutional path. And so we felt it was incumbent on us as having served in the Defense Department to say: Please all of you in the Defense Department, you've taken an oath to serve this country, this Constitution, not any given individual," he said.

I guess General Flynn won't be invited to anymore beltway cocktail parties. 

Quote
Perry, a Democrat who also served as secretary of defense under Clinton, said in a tweet Sunday evening that the idea for the statement came from Cheney, a Republican who was secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush before becoming vice president to President George W. Bush.

LOL.  Even Darth Cheney.  Deepest of the Deep Stayt Illuminati Warmongers. 

Anyways, this was all put out by CNN, those dastardly MSM villians.  Probably completely untrue.  They never had a story like this when Jimmy Carter lost in 1980.  Unfair.  Sad.  Very sad. 

It would be nice if this letter were read aloud at every formation this morning. 

Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on January 04, 2021, 10:50:41 AM
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/02/ted-cruz-electoral-college-challenge-453430

Quote
Nearly a quarter of Senate Republicans are officially preparing to challenge President-elect Joe Biden’s Electoral College win on Jan. 6, a stunning development that demonstrates just how far some in the GOP will go to align themselves with President Donald Trump’s flailing claims that the election was stolen from him.

Quote
The new faction of GOP lawmakers includes Sens. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), Mike Braun (Ind.), Cruz (Texas), Steve Daines (Mont.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), John Kennedy (La.) and James Lankford (Okla.), as well as Sen.-elects Bill Hagerty (Tenn.), Cynthia Lummis (Wyo.), Roger Marshall (Kan.) and Tommy Tuberville (Ala.).

Well, there are your TrU PaTriOtS.

Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: LetterRip on January 04, 2021, 10:53:28 AM
Interesting the claimed legal defense is that these were 'settlement talks'.

I'm pretty sure Michael Avennatti tried that same claim in his Nike extortion and was found guilty on all accounts.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-27/extortion-or-negotiation-avenatti-s-nike-jury-will-decide

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/michael-avenatti-guilty-all-counts-nike-extortion-case-n1137106
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on January 04, 2021, 11:18:27 AM
https://urbanmilwaukee.com/pressrelease/statement-by-from-former-house-speaker-paul-ryan/

Paul Ryan, Former RINO Speaker of the House:

“All our basic rights and freedoms flow from a fidelity to the Constitution and rule of law. This principle is not only fundamentally American but a central tenet on conservatism. Under our system, voters determine the president, and this self-governance cannot sustain itself if the whims of Congress replace the will of the people. I urge members to consider the precedent that it would set.

“Efforts to reject the votes of the Electoral College and sow doubt about Joe Biden‘s victory strike at the foundation of our republic. It is difficult to conceive of a more anti-democratic and anti-conservative act than a federal intervention to overturn the results of state-certified elections and disenfranchise millions of Americans. The fact that this effort will fail does not mean it not do significant damage to American democracy.

“The Trump campaign had ample opportunity to challenge election results, and those efforts failed from lack of evidence. The legal process was exhausted, and the results were decisively confirmed. The Department of Justice, too, found no basis for overturning the result. If states wish to reform their processes for future elections, that is their prerogative. But Joe Biden’s victory is entirely legitimate.”


BuhT WhUt AbOuT aLL ThOsE DeD pEoPLe voTInG?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on January 04, 2021, 01:10:07 PM
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/01/the-folly-of-the-cruz-eleven/

Deep the New York HQ fortress of National Review.  Bastion of RINO neocon Deep State Beltway Cocktail Elites.  Located deep under Bennet Park in Washington Heights, Rich Lowery holds court with Charles Cooke, Ramesh Ponuruu, and Jay Nordlinger, all with martinis made with dirty French gin and Spanish olives.  In a dark corner, scowling, sits the hulking and menacing form of Kevin Williamson, chewing on a glass pilsner full of Shiner Bock. 

In a dark satanic ritual, Lowery summons forth the spirit of Bill Buckley by sacrificing an out-of-work American automotive worker and a US Marine Lance Corporal. Buckley subsequently force chokes Victor Davis Hanson into unconsciousness.  Williamson must be restrained from trying to eat him.  They then sit down and prepare this editorial:

Quote
The Cruz eleven issued a statement justifying their position. Like Hawley’s statement last week, it doesn’t directly say that the election was stolen — the only possible basis for contesting the counting of electors. Presumably written carefully to allow the signatories plenty of wiggle room if their conduct doesn’t wear well, it instead says only that “the allegations of fraud and irregularities in the 2020 election exceed any in our lifetimes.”

Quote
Of course, this is true only because the sitting president of the United States is amplifying such allegations every day, without regard to their truthfulness or connection to reality. The allegations themselves aren’t so different from those that fueled Democratic doubts about the outcome in Ohio in 2005 — e.g., voting machines have been used to switch votes. The difference is that back then, the losing candidate wasn’t promoting the outlandish charges, with many officeholders in his own party too frightened or cynical to contradict him.

Quote
The letter from the Cruz eleven states that “ideally, the courts would have heard evidence and resolved these claims of serious election fraud.” In point of fact, federal courts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Nevada did consider the Trump campaign’s claims on the merits, and they all found them wanting. The letter laments that the Supreme Court didn’t take up the factual questions, but the highest court in the land isn’t a random fact-finding body. The most prominent suit that landed on its desk was an attempt by Texas to throw out the results in key battlegrounds won by Biden. The court declined to hear the suit because it was so flagrantly constitutionally flawed.

Quote
To compare any of this to today is perverse. In Georgia, for instance, machine and hand recounts have confirmed the results, while a signature audit has found no evidence of endemic mismatches. Yet, the president of the United States is still calling the Republican secretary of state of Georgia to try to browbeat him into awarding him victory in the state based on misinformation and conspiracy theories.

Quote
Trump may like this model, assuming it is stacked in his favor. The problem is that, in reaction to the debacle of 1877, Congress adopted a statute giving states a “safe harbor” for their electors, i.e., assurance that they’d be considered conclusive by the federal government, if appointed six days prior to the Electoral College. All the contested states (except for Wisconsin) met this standard. No competing slate of electors was appointed by any legitimate body of any state government. The Cruz eleven propose to call into doubt the sole slate of state-appointed electors in each state anyway, and to essentially attempt to usurp what is supposed to be the state function of appointing electors. The federalists among the Cruz eleven know all this — at least they do when they aren’t currying favor with Donald Trump.

The Cruz eleven realize that their effort isn’t going anywhere. Both houses of Congress would have to vote to uphold objections to electors. Neither will, and neither should. If all they want to do is signal that they are upset that Biden won, this isn’t the manner or the forum to do it. Nor is this the proper way to examine underhanded electoral practices that did not alter the outcome, or to propose election reforms, however needed.

Barbara Boxer shouldn’t be a conservative role model.


Meanwhile, in Georgia, the heroic and noble witcher L Lin Wood, senses the disturbance in the force caused by Buckley's summoning and mounts his stallion to head north.   
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Seriati on January 04, 2021, 02:26:12 PM
He's trying to make an argument straight to Raffensperger that has been shot down in court after court after court. 

He's not knowingly with intent trying to solicit fraud.  He really believes it.

I think the second statement got it correct.  He really does believe it and he has all along.  He's not alone in that.  Can you blame him for not trusting the process, literally every bit of the administrative state has been working to undermine him his entire Presidency.  This looks - from his perspective - as one more deep state effort to make sure the "right" guy wins. 

What should have concerned you more is that something like a third of the country believes the election was stolen too.  Whether you guys want to believe it or not, the absolute denialism of the possibility of significant fraud has probably hopelessly undercut getting them to change their minds.  The goal should have been transparent falsification of the situation, not denying what people can see with their own eyes.  Admitting that things seem off and explaining why they can still be relied upon (e.g., the statistically improbable decline in rejected absentee votes in GA, when so many more voters were voting remotely.  Lots of reasonable ways that could have occurred and been explained, instead we got the ethically dubious changes to the standards upon which they were vetted, the destruction of the ability to audit them, clear patterns of preventing observers and even forcing observers out, and an entire messy refusal to conduct an audit in a timely manner).  If you think they were innocent - which you have to given you position - you should recognize a massive bureaucratic ass covering attempt and understand the impact that has on those who think they were not innocent.

I also quoted the first statement because its false.  It's part of the strategy to repeat irrelevant numbers and facts to build what looks like an argument from authority.  Virtually none of the "60" cases involved really addressed the issues.  Many were rejected on standing or other legal doctrines.  I think the clearest signal that you can take from the court decisions is that if you can "win" with multiple states the courts are going to let you get away with any level of improprieties in a single state.  There is no remedy for systemic illegal voting, and only a remedy for systemic fraud if you can demonstrate it exactly (which is impossible).

The Supreme Court could have settled this if they had chosen.  They could have taken on the Texas case and ruled either that modifications to a legislative voting scheme by courts and administrative officials are okay (because they are exercising delegated authority from the legislature) - in which case it was over - or not okay in which case we'd have had more than a pickle, but they still could have resolved it against Trump.  It would have been settled, and they chose not to settle it.

What ever you think about the impact of fraud, there is no question, zero question at all, that if the courts held that modifications to the legislative voting rules violate the Constitution then there were more than enough illegal votes to tip the balance.  So quite literally, there is an open Constitutional question that changes the result of the election.  Best you can say is that the question isn't open since the courts are refusing to hear it, still I expect they will agree to hear it in the future - when it isn't Trump on the line - and rule that there are in fact limits on what courts and officers can order without violating the Constitution, and in "retrospect" what happened this year will be a violation of those limits.  Kind of like several of Robert's opinions that have said a President has the authority to do x, but we're still not going to let Trump do it.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on January 04, 2021, 02:32:28 PM
Serati

You keep saying that most of the cases Trump lost were not on the merits but I think at least a dozen were decided on the merits and Trump  lost. Trump, and you, disagree with those decisions and so say they were not decided on the merits.

Every time Trump looses it is not that he was wrong. Trump will never admit he was/is wrong. He will keep saying the courts are not showing any courage. What a bunch of crap. They are showing courage, just as the SOS of GA is showing courage.

We have not heard a peep from Powell or Guliani about Dominion in a week or so now, ever since the notice of defamation suites were put out.  I wonder why?  If you have the truth, that is your defense.  But instead Powell et all have been silent. Why?  Because they know they are lying.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: TheDrake on January 04, 2021, 03:08:51 PM
And the time to challenge those voting regulations is BEFORE the election, when the rules were being made. You don't get to play a game of monopoly to its completion and then, after you lose, bicker about whether there should have been money on Free Parking. Not to mention that they weren't even seeking a do-over election under old rules, they just wanted to toss the votes that were made in good faith by millions.

The challenges were being made in the respective states already, and had already been rejected. In PA, it wasn't even "administrative" changes, it was by state law.

Delaware, same thing. Challenged vote-by-mail law, passed by the legislature.

Quote
The Senate passed the measure 18-3, with all Democrats and six of the nine Republicans voting yes. It was approved 25-13 in the House, with no GOP support.

Those Republicans didn't seem to have a problem with it, they VOTED for it. Perhaps they thought saving thousands of lives and protecting the rights of the old and sick to vote might be more important than a hypothetical amount of fraudulent votes.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on January 04, 2021, 03:20:06 PM

I think the second statement got it correct.  He really does believe it and he has all along.  He's not alone in that.  Can you blame him for not trusting the process, literally every bit of the administrative state has been working to undermine him his entire Presidency.  This looks - from his perspective - as one more deep state effort to make sure the "right" guy wins. 

No Serati.  If I was a madman, or a raving lunatic, who had it stuck in my head that I was the hero in the story and that my enemies were all part of an evil conspiracy of darkness to thwart me, I would of course feel the same way.  I couldn't blame him at all.  Especially when it comes to the evil conspirators in the Republican party of GEORGIA, or WISCONSIN, OR ARIZONA.  Oh yeah.  If I was crazy I'd feel exactly the same way. 

Quote
What should have concerned you more is that something like a third of the country believes the election was stolen too.

Oh, I am.  But on the other hand I believe that this third of the country believes the bs that it is told to believe and doesn't really have the ability to think for itself.  That is to say, it's not the 1/3 of the country, but the people the country that feed that 1/3 a pack of bs that reinforces their preconceptions, and the politicians who go along with it because they want that delicious proletariat vote. 

Quote
Whether you guys want to believe it or not, the absolute denialism of the possibility of significant fraud has probably hopelessly undercut getting them to change their minds.  The goal should have been transparent falsification of the situation, not denying what people can see with their own eyes.

I don't think this is what actually happened, but do go on.  We're all rapt with attention on how this is all our fault.  That because of us they cannot change their minds because of what they saw "with their own eyes".  What exactly did they see again? 

Quote
kool aid kool aid kool aid kool aid kool aid kool aid kool aid

Oh YEAH! 

Sure, whatever. 

Quote
Virtually none of the "60" cases involved really addressed the issues.

Sure. 

Quote
Many were rejected on standing or other legal doctrines.

What?  ::snort:: 

Quote
There is no remedy for systemic illegal voting, and only a remedy for systemic fraud if you can demonstrate it exactly (which is impossible).

OMG.  How can they demand that you demonstrate something in a court?!  That insane legal doctrine! 

Quote
The Supreme Court could have settled this if they had chosen.  They could have taken on the Texas case and ruled either that modifications to a legislative voting scheme by courts and administrative officials are okay (because they are exercising delegated authority from the legislature) - in which case it was over - or not okay in which case we'd have had more than a pickle, but they still could have resolved it against Trump.  It would have been settled, and they chose not to settle it.

Yup.  If I believed that *censored*, I would believe the administrative state was after me too. 

Doesn't anyone else notice this?  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! 

So you can't prove anything that you say happened in a court.  And half the things you want to do you do not have the authority to do.  The other half of the things you want to do a court doesn't have the authority to do.  The Supreme Court upholds Federalism, a conservative "legal doctrine", 7 to 2.  But it's all a conspiracy of the administrative state.  The Republican administrative states of Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin.  Plus the administrative state of 3/4 of the Republicans in the US Senate.  Most previous Republican government officials.  The other 2/3s of the American people.  AND THE *censored*ING GHOST OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN.  They're all part of an administrative state conspiracy against the hero.  4 of the 6 Republican appointed Supreme Court Justices. 

But that 1/3 of America that believes in the hero must be placated. 



Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on January 04, 2021, 03:29:41 PM
Or Trump lost.

Which seems more likely?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on January 04, 2021, 03:40:01 PM

Can you blame him for not trusting the process, literally every bit of the administrative state has been working to undermine him his entire Presidency.  This looks - from his perspective - as one more deep state effort to make sure the "right" guy wins. 

Oh yeah.  Trump's own Attorney General and Justice Department.  Part of the deep state effort.  Forgot about them. 

Yeah.  If I believed yahoo lawyers like L Lin Wood over my own Justice Department, I'd think they were after me too. 
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on January 04, 2021, 03:50:05 PM
I think the second statement got it correct.  He really does believe it and he has all along.  He's not alone in that.  Can you blame him for not trusting the process, literally every bit of the administrative state has been working to undermine him his entire Presidency.  This looks - from his perspective - as one more deep state effort to make sure the "right" guy wins.

Yes, we can definitely blame the fascist piece of excrement.

Your continuing excuses for the monster that he has been revealed to be earn you my utter contempt.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DJQuag on January 04, 2021, 04:10:47 PM
You're all being too hard on the guy. He literally told us if we'd just shut up and ignore the law, give him the 12k needed and just shut up about it, he would be fine. Next state on is another battle but the fact we won't give him his home battleground is pretty clear we're biased against him. We all need a lawsuit to shut us up.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DJQuag on January 04, 2021, 04:14:01 PM
All due respect but when Grant is the one to step aside and say, "Oh *censored* this looks pretty bad for everyone with a working nose," then everyone needs to stop and take a look. Gl
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: rightleft22 on January 04, 2021, 04:15:45 PM
If you really believe something is true you can't be held accountable and if you can't prove something didn't happen it is proof that something did happen.
That's just common sense which over 1/3 of the population accepts, which is even more proof their was fraud.
What's not to get?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: DonaldD on January 04, 2021, 04:30:22 PM
Trump was repeating, ad nauseam before the election, that if he lost, it would be because of fraud.  He lost.  The only rational explanation was that there was fraud.  This is all the evidence he needs.

And it has been enough to convince, after endless repetition, a huge swathe of the country.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: rightleft22 on January 04, 2021, 05:18:26 PM
Trump was repeating, ad nauseam before the election, that if he lost, it would be because of fraud.  He lost.  The only rational explanation was that there was fraud.  This is all the evidence he needs.

And it has been enough to convince, after endless repetition, a huge swathe of the country.

They cannot see their shadow and so create what they fear

Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on January 04, 2021, 05:25:51 PM
Meanwhile, deep in the American Heartland of West Palm Beach, Florida, on the 18th green of the PGA National Resort and Spa Estate Course, a man falls to his knees in the pouring rain.  Thunder crashes and lightening flashes as he raises his eyes up to entreat the Orange Messiah.  "What of your people?  The 1/3 who believe?" he entreats. 

But far down in the lowest levels of National Review headquarters, below Bennet Park in Washington Heights, seated on a glowing pentagram deep in mediation, Michael Brendan Doherty awakens.  He hears the cries of the 33%.  He slithers past a cell where Williamson is feasting on a screaming white hydrocodone addict from Kentucky, paying him no mind.  He unlocks a dank, dark cell and within is a blinded and shackled fallen angel, feathery wings dripping a dark oily substance, heavy steel cables protruding from it's eyes and the top of it's head and plugged into a bank of computers running Windows 10. 

Doherty sidles up besides the creature and hisses in it's ear.  "Tell me Yuval.  Tell me what you see". 

The creature called Yuval speaks in a hoarse, raspy whisper, and Doherty records this article. 

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/failures-of-leadership-in-a-populist-age/

Quote
For many years now, an important segment of the Republican electorate has been increasingly frustrated with the elites who lead our core institutions. The political outlook of these voters has come to be defined by that frustration — a sense that people with power and privilege in American life routinely abuse that power and privilege for personal gain and ideological advantage, that they lie to the public, look down on everybody else’s ways of life, and actively threaten the religious and cultural foundations of American society.

Quote
But as is often the case with populist movements, the frustration at the heart of this enterprise is rooted in a mix of reality and fantasy. Some of its complaints — economic, cultural, political, intellectual, historical, and otherwise — reflect genuine abuses, inequalities, and policy mistakes that have exacted serious costs in the middle and lower educational and economic tiers of our society while mostly advantaging the upper tiers. These are the kinds of things that a political program could try to redress in various ways. But some of its complaints are based in an excessively sinister set of assumptions about the motives of American elites, in unfounded assertions about the actions of those elites, or in fevered conspiracies of abuses of power without a basis in fact.

Quote
Some early signs on this front are obviously worrisome. The post-election political spectacle has put the question of reality and fantasy front and center. A meaningful number of Republican voters are frustrated because they believe widespread fraud in key states stole the election for Joe Biden. They are wrong about this. In fact, the election was relatively close and yielded a mixed result without much evidence of serious fraud. Trump lost fairly narrowly but clearly in a series of swing states and so lost the presidency, but Republicans improved their standing in the House of Representatives and lost just a few seats in the Senate in a year when they had more seats at risk. No inquiry into fraud has turned up anything of note, and claims to the contrary have all melted away under scrutiny; most were never even made in court because they couldn’t even reach the level of assertions.

Quote
Republican politicians could deal with these facts, and so look for ways to use the power they possess to pursue the opportunities they have to advance their voters’ interests and expand their future electoral appeal. Or they could pretend the lies too many of their voters have accepted are true and put on a show for those voters, to both justify and intensify their frustration and outrage. And some Republicans in Congress have clearly chosen the latter course — an easy but corrosive populism, rather than a hard but constructive populism.

Quote
President Trump himself has obviously encouraged them in this course. He is deeply fluent in the fraud conspiracies, and seems genuinely to believe them — as he has often shown himself incapable of separating fact from fiction too. We now also know that he has tried to get state officials to steal votes for him even as he claims the Democrats stole them away. He is intent on talking a different reality into being and demands that others accept it. To abide and encourage the election-fraud conspiracies is to affirm the web of lies he has been spinning, and the Republican politicians who have chosen to do that know full well that this is what it means.

Quote
To knowingly pretend a lie is true is, simply put, to lie. Doing that carefully enough to let you claim you’re only raising questions only makes it even clearer that you know you’re lying. Lying to people is no way to speak for them or represent them. It is a way of showing contempt for them, and of using them rather than being useful to them. This is what too many Republican politicians have chosen to do in the wake of the election. They have decided to feign anger at a problem that cannot be solved because it does not exist, and this cannot help but make them less capable of taking up real problems on behalf of their voters. And in any case, it makes them cynical liars.

Quote
By lying to these voters in order to benefit from their outrage, Republican politicians are living down to the view these voters have of our country’s leaders — precisely the view those politicians claim to channel and share. They are affirming too many voters in their low opinion of American politics, and they are leaving them doubtful that the incoming president is legitimate and that our larger system of government is too.

No amount of macho fighting talk can cover up this simple fact: To play along with the president’s lies about the election is a profound failure of leadership, a dereliction of responsibility, and a disgrace.


Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Seriati on January 04, 2021, 05:27:54 PM
Serati

You keep saying that most of the cases Trump lost were not on the merits but I think at least a dozen were decided on the merits and Trump  lost.

First, "most" of the cases weren't even filed by Trump.  Several of his are still outstanding.  The strongest claim that he makes is that the pre-election shenanigans violated the Constitution.  As far as I'm aware only one court purported to reach that on the merits.

Dismissal of some of the cases should actually be considered as possible further election manipulation.  For example, in PA the Supreme Court is one of the parties whose conduct potentially violated the Constitution.  Why should their dismissal of cases (effectively doubling down) be considered as meaningful?

In fact, the whole idea that anything material is revealed by the court cases being dismissed at this point is itself fallacious.  I mean, it's come out that in an undismissed GA course a big reason its still active is the denial by the state of access to information that would prove the charges one way or the other.  Exactly what you'd expect to see in a cover up.

Do you remember how many of the early claims related to not being able to prove fraud?  I heard that over and over, hear much less of it now, both because fraud was found all over the place and because the main claims, the most serious ones, have little to do with proving fraud.

Quote
Trump, and you, disagree with those decisions and so say they were not decided on the merits.

Well that depends on the decisions you are referring too.  Right now, tell me how many you actually read?  I'm guessing either one or zero, am I right?

No, what you're actually doing is repeating a claim compiled by activists about what occurred.

Quote
Every time Trump looses it is not that he was wrong. Trump will never admit he was/is wrong. He will keep saying the courts are not showing any courage. What a bunch of crap. They are showing courage, just as the SOS of GA is showing courage.

He's right the courts are not showing courage.  I think they've calculated that the harm of overturning a result is going to be a riot, possible a revolution, and definitely harm to the courts.  Whereas the harm of allowing the certification of an illegal election?  One that quite a few people want to have been the legitimate result?  One that because they didn't show courage can never be proven to have been illegal?

The harm there is to us as a country, but it won't (probably won't) lead to riots or revolution, with the media blanket it'll be smoothered over.

Quote
We have not heard a peep from Powell or Guliani about Dominion in a week or so now, ever since the notice of defamation suites were put out.  I wonder why?  If you have the truth, that is your defense.  But instead Powell et all have been silent. Why?  Because they know they are lying.

Beats me, not sure I care.  But having the truth is NOT enough, you have to be able to prove it as well, and Dominion is the one that will have control of the evidence (if any exists).
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Seriati on January 04, 2021, 05:37:31 PM
And the time to challenge those voting regulations is BEFORE the election, when the rules were being made. You don't get to play a game of monopoly to its completion and then, after you lose, bicker about whether there should have been money on Free Parking. Not to mention that they weren't even seeking a do-over election under old rules, they just wanted to toss the votes that were made in good faith by millions.

Actually no.  Challenging pre-election is barred by "ripeness" as you can't prove you've been harmed, and after by laches saying you didn't bring it timely.  And how do you "challenge" an admistrative settlement made with blessing of a state supreme court that contradicts the law passed by the legislature?  I guarantee the courts aren't taking that case without a demonstrable harm.  To do otherwise is effectively the court providing an advisory opinion, which the federal courts are prohibited from doing.

Quote
The challenges were being made in the respective states already, and had already been rejected. In PA, it wasn't even "administrative" changes, it was by state law.

Nah, it was a legal settlement by the Democratic AG of a friendly suit upheld by the Democrat majority on the elected Supreme Court, that eliminated provisions of the law that had been passed by the Republican state legislature.  Unlike the AG and the Justices the PA state legislature is part time.

What does it matter what the law says, when activist administration officials can modify it to include modifications expressly considered and rejected by the legislature?

Quote
Those Republicans didn't seem to have a problem with it, they VOTED for it. Perhaps they thought saving thousands of lives and protecting the rights of the old and sick to vote might be more important than a hypothetical amount of fraudulent votes.

Hey, if you're saying the law in PA should be enforced as passed by those Republicans (and Democrats) and signed by the Democrat Governor, happy to have that happen.  Of course, you just endorsed the Trump admin lawsuit.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: TheDrake on January 04, 2021, 05:51:49 PM
Quote
The justices contended that if the plaintiffs had constitutional concerns over the mail-in voting law, their suit would have been filed earlier and not after millions of mail-in ballots were cast in the 2020 primary and general election. The justices further noted that the plaintiffs waited until after the votes had been tallied and their preferred presidential candidate lost the state.

So I guess you know the law better than actual lawyers appointed to be judges. Got it.

You can find all kinds of lawsuits out there that applied to elections before they happened, including ones involving who gets to be on a ballot. And, in fact there was a lawsuit filed (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-lawsuit/pennsylvania-judge-tosses-trump-lawsuit-over-mail-in-voting-idUSKBN26V0RT) in PA over drop boxes in October.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Seriati on January 04, 2021, 06:14:54 PM

I think the second statement got it correct.  He really does believe it and he has all along.  He's not alone in that.  Can you blame him for not trusting the process, literally every bit of the administrative state has been working to undermine him his entire Presidency.  This looks - from his perspective - as one more deep state effort to make sure the "right" guy wins. 

No Serati.  If I was a madman, or a raving lunatic, who had it stuck in my head that I was the hero in the story and that my enemies were all part of an evil conspiracy of darkness to thwart me, I would of course feel the same way.  I couldn't blame him at all.  Especially when it comes to the evil conspirators in the Republican party of GEORGIA, or WISCONSIN, OR ARIZONA.  Oh yeah.  If I was crazy I'd feel exactly the same way.

Officials with an interest in the swamp exist in both parties.  I know you guys love to make a big deal out of Republicans that "break ranks" but they're really part of the system.  Politicians can so much less about party than they do about power.

Quote
Quote
What should have concerned you more is that something like a third of the country believes the election was stolen too.

Oh, I am.  But on the other hand I believe that this third of the country believes the bs that it is told to believe and doesn't really have the ability to think for itself.  That is to say, it's not the 1/3 of the country, but the people the country that feed that 1/3 a pack of bs that reinforces their preconceptions, and the politicians who go along with it because they want that delicious proletariat vote.

I more than have the ability to think for myself.  And I'm exercising it here.  I see no flaw, other than a dubious tradition that's being more abused in every election, with the argument that modifications to the legislative design for an election are unConstitutional.  Frankly, the correct answer for an election law that the court deems "illegal" would be to void the entire law and have the legislature correct the illegality. 

For example, how could the court in PA know with certainty that the state legislature would prefer to have expanded remote voting (which was illegal previously) without the safety protocals that they carefully included, rather than to revert to the previous voting rules?  They can't, but the judges in question had a political preference that they chose to implement.  They are the wrong branch of government to do that.

Quote
I don't think this is what actually happened, but do go on.  We're all rapt with attention on how this is all our fault.  That because of us they cannot change their minds because of what they saw "with their own eyes".  What exactly did they see again?

They saw fraud, they still see fraud, and they seem a media doing everything it's power to follow the following plan:  (1) deny fraud, doesn't exist, never happens (been hearing that for years), and the only evidence?  you can't catch it in a secret ballot system - of course people are literally convicted of voter fraud in connection with every election;  (2) if it's clear it can't be denied, 'splain it with any 'splanation, doesn't have to be a good one cause we'll magnify the denial and bury the story as old news, call everyone who sees it crazy, deny every sworn attestation as false or mistaken, pretend every eye witness is buying into a conspiracy, if all else fails conduct an investigation designed to find nothing but that can be widely reported as settling the matter; and (3) if it can't be denied or 'splained - deny the scale, it's impossible that it occurred at a scale that could swing an election, cause we all know that no one can find evidence on many of these things and what they do find (after we make it difficult to find) will never total up to enough.  Sure you found 10k fraudulent votes, but you lost by 11k and "clearly" that's all the fraud that occurred.

Show me now the deep dives by the media to root out fraud that are comparable to what they did in FL during Bush v. Gore to try and steal the election for Gore.

Quote
Quote
Virtually none of the "60" cases involved really addressed the issues.

Sure. 

Thanks for admitting your error.

Quote
Quote
There is no remedy for systemic illegal voting, and only a remedy for systemic fraud if you can demonstrate it exactly (which is impossible).

OMG.  How can they demand that you demonstrate something in a court?!  That insane legal doctrine!

Yes, we have always found it to be "insane."   Oh wait, that's exactly what systemic racism is, you can't prove with facts or demonstrate it with evidence or prove that it impacted you, but its definitely there.

I think you're ignoring the difference between the illegal voting and fraudulent voting issues because you don't have a real answer, but maybe I'm wrong.

There is zero question that there is an open question under the Constitution on voting, that if resolved favorably to Trump would eliminate more illegal votes than the margin of victory.  The courts don't want to resolve that, maybe they would if it could also be demostrated that significant fraud occurred on a coordinated scale, but then that would provide a completely separate remedy and the illegal voting question wouldn't need to be answered.

The remedy in question is a real tough one as well.  Do you potentially punish hundreds of thousands of voters for relying on an illegal process?  No court wants to do that.  Or do you potentially undermine an election that may have very likely turned out differently, but we can't be certain that it would have?  Either way a wrong occurred.

That's why the remedy could only be to kick it to the legislatures involved.  They would still be capable of endorsing the voting results, and whether you think it or not, even Republican legislatures may be inclined to do so where the alternative is losing control of their entire state.

Quote
Yup.  If I believed that *censored*, I would believe the administrative state was after me too. 

Doesn't anyone else notice this?  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

I think you've turned off your brain honestly.  What I've said about illegal voting is reasonably disputable.  The Constitution is open to more than one interpretation, but it turns on a quite simple question.  Are judicially and administrative modified election rules the same as what is required under  the constitution when it establishes the state legislatures with exclusive authority to establish the methods of those elections?  The PA SC says yes (it has to because it engaged in the practice) and the US SC stayed out of it.

All that's certain is that we can expect thousands more law suits to modify election rules going forward. 

Quote
So you can't prove anything that you say happened in a court.

I can prove everything I said about illegal voting, you could too.  Fraud, you need data, data that's in the exclusive control of election and other state officials, some of which they destroyed in the process of counting the votes, and other data only collectible from the voters themselves.

How about you lay out exactly what you'd accept.  How do you prove who Joe Smith voted for - Trump or Biden - and whether his mail in ballot, collected by an activist, transmitted by an activist and counted by an activist, was recorded in the manner that Joe Smith choose?

When you can explain that one in a convincing and provable manner I'll give your "outrage" that Trump can't "prove" it in court serious thought.

Quote
The Supreme Court upholds Federalism, a conservative "legal doctrine", 7 to 2.  But it's all a conspiracy of the administrative state.

The SC didn't uphold federalism by denying Texas standing.

Quote
The Republican administrative states of Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin.  Plus the administrative state of 3/4 of the Republicans in the US Senate.  Most previous Republican government officials.  The other 2/3s of the American people.  AND THE *censored*ING GHOST OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN.  They're all part of an administrative state conspiracy against the hero.  4 of the 6 Republican appointed Supreme Court Justices.

None of whom have to participate in any conspiracy for the points I made to be valid.  Overturning an illegal election would be the single most consequential decision the SC ever made.  I can't imagine any result to do so that would be accepted no matter the principals or proof offered.  Well I caveat that, I think the Democrats may have been able to get away with it if Trump had won narrowly. 

I don't why you persist in a strawman argument about grand conspiracies. 

Quote
But that 1/3 of America that believes in the hero must be placated.

No, 1/3 of Americans (including a significant number of Democrats) believe the election was stolen.  Not necessarily that Trump should be able to overturn the result.

I know that modifications to voting rules pushed by Democrats repeatedly, even before COVID, are designed to make cheating harder to catch and fraud easier to commit.  I know that enough votes came through modified procedures that would have eliminated them as legitimate to overturn the election.  I know that fraud occurred in a number of places, in a number of states, and in a variety of manners.

What I don't know is whether Biden might have still won if the election had been conducted legally.  It's that doubt that's really holding every body up. 
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Seriati on January 04, 2021, 06:23:52 PM
Quote
The justices contended that if the plaintiffs had constitutional concerns over the mail-in voting law, their suit would have been filed earlier and not after millions of mail-in ballots were cast in the 2020 primary and general election. The justices further noted that the plaintiffs waited until after the votes had been tallied and their preferred presidential candidate lost the state.

So I guess you know the law better than actual lawyers appointed to be judges. Got it.

I know the law well enough to interpret that.  You are required to be damaged to have standing.  Waiting for the votes to be tallied is what causes the damages.

Nothing on earth stops judges from ignoring some doctrines and exalting others when it's convenient to them and I guarantee if the suit had been before the same judges before the election they would have denied relief by denying standing.  Telling the plaintiffs they had only theoretical harms, and even by arguing that it was too close to the election to grant relief.

You can find those decisions scattered across the country if go look.

Quote
You can find all kinds of lawsuits out there that applied to elections before they happened, including ones involving who gets to be on a ballot. And, in fact there was a lawsuit filed (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-lawsuit/pennsylvania-judge-tosses-trump-lawsuit-over-mail-in-voting-idUSKBN26V0RT) in PA over drop boxes in October.

Lol, did you even read your article?  Dismissed because the damages were speculative.  How would Trump prove fraud would definitely occur at those boxes before the election?  if suing afterwards is barred because it's not timely, you literally just demonstrated the problem.

Not to mention, you noticed the second item that he sued over?  He was trying to get the rule that requires election watchers to be registered in the district repealed.  Remember how nearly a quarter of the Districts in Philly don't have enough Republicans to even have watchers.  Hmmm...
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on January 04, 2021, 06:30:48 PM
Serati

Powell says she has thousands of documents proving the fraud. That she has proof. She says she can prove it. Why has she shut up now?  Maybe she was lying the whole time?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: kidv on January 04, 2021, 06:47:45 PM
https://i.redd.it/cpyz2u6mhd961.jpg (https://i.redd.it/cpyz2u6mhd961.jpg)

Georgia's Secretary of State has posted a fact check board with a specific accounting and investigation status of each complaint made by Trump.

I surmise because he is doing his job and has the correct data.

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/kqgqkm/georgias_secretary_of_state_has_a_fact_check/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/kqgqkm/georgias_secretary_of_state_has_a_fact_check/)
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Wayward Son on January 04, 2021, 06:54:54 PM
In case anyone needed to to have it spelled out (https://politicalwire.com/2021/01/04/the-made-up-conspiracy/)

Quote
Above all, the Republicans’ challenge is part of an information-warfare campaign. They are using a classic propaganda tactic that might be called “conspiracy bootstrapping.” First, you introduce a false idea, spreading it by every available means. Then, once people are talking about it, and some believe it, you cite its prevalence as evidence that it might be true—an epistemic sleight-of-hand by which propaganda validates itself.

This tactic is evident in a statement that 11 Republican senators issued Saturday, explaining why they intended to reject the electoral college counts of several states that Biden won, and to demand an “Electoral Commission to conduct an emergency 10-day audit.” The senators did not, and could not, point to any allegations of fraud that were credible, were large enough to affect the election outcome, and had not already been aired, examined and rejected by the proper authorities. In other words, the senators could not justify their actions by saying that the allegations were true. Instead they relied on the claim that the allegations were widespread. ...

Traditional conspiracy theories—claims about staged moon landings or silent mind control—tend to be grand and elaborate, sometimes comically so, weaving tangled narratives that purport to explain everything. The new conspiracism, by contrast, offers no proofs, evidence or theory.

It “dispenses with the burden of explanation,” write Muirhead and Rosenblum, and it does not necessarily try to be convincing. Rather, it foments confusion, disorientation, cynicism and division. It levels accusations, observes which get traction, then uses their popularity to justify the claim that they might be true. It thus “substitutes social validation for scientific validation: If a lot of people are saying it, to use Trump’s signature phrase, then it is true enough.”

The problem with Republicanism in a nutshell.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on January 04, 2021, 07:22:28 PM
Wayward,

Please call it Trumpism.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on January 04, 2021, 07:44:05 PM
You guys are still debating Seriati as if he's a good faith debater, rather than a malicious propagandist quite consciously serving a lie.

At some point, the liar must just be dismissed and shamed as a liar. He knows everything he's saying is bull*censored*. He knows he's constantly trying to obfuscate and distract from plain facts. That's why his rhetoric keeps jumping from point to point to point, and he never commit to anything specific but keeps speaking vaguenessess after vaguenesses.

Seriati keeps seeing supposedly lying left-wing media, and he somehow never see Trump vomit forth lie after lie after lie. He somehow failed to see Trump talk about Brad R's non-existent brother, as he had previously failed to see the Trumpist nonsense in social media about DoD battles with CIA mercenaries in Frankfurt and Spain, as he'd never seen lies about the husband of Biden's sister being an owner of Dominion, as he'd never see every bull*censored* claim disproven in and outside of court.

After a hundred Trumpist lies, disproven one after another after another, all invisible to him, the disgusting worm still has the audacity to accuse US of not caring about the truth. F-U-C-K HIM. Stop debating the disgusting fascist. He's consciously trying to serve the overthrow of American democracy which Trump is attempting, just because he likes his poliics and he doesn't care if he should overthrow democracy to do so. Every pretense otherwise on his part is itself a lie.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on January 04, 2021, 07:47:03 PM
You guys are still debating Seriati as if he's a good faith debater,

No
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Seriati on January 04, 2021, 10:48:45 PM
So I had not read the transcript previously, and now that I have, I'll just flat out say that anyone that's cited as "evidence" Trump asked them to find votes for Trump or do anything illegal is a bald faced liar.

It's clear as day that Trump asserts multiple categories of fraudulent votes that he feels his lawyers have identified and he's demanding they be properly vetted.  His reference to "finding" 11k votes is to finding 11k illegal and/or fraudulent votes for Biden, where he already thinks he's found hundreds of thousands in GA.  There's not even any question of that from CNN's own transcript. 

There's some substantial differences of opinion between Trump's team and the Secretary of State.  Most of it seems to be centered around Trump's team identifying likely fraudulent votes, like say 5,000 dead voters and the SoS saying "trust me" we looked into and there were only 2 dead voters, but really you'll have to trust me because I'm not letting you see the data I used to determine that or even describing the process that I used.  Why would anyone that has identified what they believe are more than an order of magnitude more fraudulent votes than they need to tip the result believe someone who is just saying trust me?

Given the actual content of that call and the fact that it was deliberately recorded and leaked to imply an even more nefarious spin than is possible, it's 100% clear -  Wayward - exactly which team is spreading propaganda and it ain't team Trump. 

Citing to a write up that was written by the left to distract from the left's own motives is hardly convincing.  It's an old trick and well drawn from too often.  I mean, you go back and look at the amici brief and Judge Sullivan's opinion on Flynn, where they cited to an - at the time - unpublished Law Review article that just happens to be the only thing ever written supporting their novel claim that the case needn't be dismissed.   I  will say the left knows exactly how propaganda works, its exactly the process they're using here.  Repeatedly assert that the fraud is a conspiracy, even if they've never shown it and just said "trust us" we looked at the stuff and there is no fraud.  Really, what did they look at?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Seriati on January 04, 2021, 11:22:55 PM
You guys are still debating Seriati as if he's a good faith debater, rather than a malicious propagandist quite consciously serving a lie.

At some point, the liar must just be dismissed and shamed as a liar. He knows everything he's saying is bull*censored*.

You've called me a liar again I see.  Still can't address my points so you have to go with the ad hominem?

Quote
He knows he's constantly trying to obfuscate and distract from plain facts. That's why his rhetoric keeps jumping from point to point to point, and he never commit to anything specific but keeps speaking vaguenessess after vaguenesses.

What "plain facts" am I obfuscating?  My rhetoric jumps from point to point, because I'm responding to the nonsense that gets thrown at me, be happy to focus on actual facts and a specific argument.  Pick one:

How is the current practice of judicial or executive modification of legislative election rules consistent with the U.S. Constitution?  I even gave you the roadmap on that, but please provide something more than a bald opinion.

How is it "propaganda" to dispute an election where illegal votes, depending on the Constitutional interpretation above, outweigh decisively the margin of victory?

Why is there no transparency on the process used in GA to "prove" that fraudulent election issues uncovered by the Trump campaign did not impact the election?  I mean goodness sake, you guys actually cited to a picture of sign as proof.  What on Earth does that prove other than someone told you to trust them and then told you what you wanted to hear?

Quote
Seriati keeps seeing supposedly lying left-wing media, and he somehow never see Trump vomit forth lie after lie after lie.

I'm not "supposing" the media is lying, the media is openly partisan and repeatedly lies.  They have been lying near constantly, I've personally demonstrated it on here on multiple occasions.  Even when they are not deliberately lying, deliberately covering up, deliberately downplaying stories, they are never ever holding them to the same standards - can't print a true story about Hunter Biden because it hasn't be triple verified (though it had in fact), but happy to print endless stories about Trump from "knowledgeable insiders" even when they've been demonstrated as false.

No rational person could believe they haven't consistently, persistently and maliciously misrepresented Trump near constantly.  And there's not a lot of need cause Trump is more than happy to dig his own grave at times.

So why don't you prove the lie after lie.  I'm not accepting third party work on this.  Go read this transcript and prove out the "lie" after "lie" told by Trump, showing the knowing falsehoods that he's passing on.  Prove that his statements are false.  Or heck, pick any long speech or transcript and do the same.  Should be easy for such a discerning consumer of information as yourself.  My guess is you can't because all you are is a consumer of other's "work" and you've been convinced by pieces carefully cultivated for your consumption.  But feel free to prove me wrong (or as is more likely, fail to rise to the challenge and insult me again).

Quote
He somehow failed to see Trump talk about Brad R's non-existent brother, as he had previously failed to see the Trumpist nonsense in social media about DoD battles with CIA mercenaries in Frankfurt and Spain, as he'd never seen lies about the husband of Biden's sister being an owner of Dominion, as he'd never see every bull*censored* claim disproven in and outside of court.

I haven't seen any of the first 3 claims anywhere but here.  Not sure, honestly, where you're seeing them either.  Dominion I'd say he still has an issue with if you look at the transcript.  Sounds like he believes, whether or not its reality, that not only are they corrupt that there is some proof of it.

Personally, I find it hard to see how Dominion based fraud works if there are valid hard copy votes to compare with the computer results.  Now if there are only receipts, or purely electronic records that's a different matter.

Quote
After a hundred Trumpist lies, disproven one after another after another, all invisible to him, the disgusting worm still has the audacity to accuse US of not caring about the truth.

Dear Aris, that's because you don't care about truth.  You cite to propagandists and you believe them because you're not a critical thinker.  I guarantee you've never found a 100 trump lies in a row, probably never even disproved 5 statements in a row.  You've read a collated list of "trumpist" lies often pulled from context and nearly always not actually lies.

Trump has clearly false statements out there.  So does Joe Biden.  The media "fact checked" Trump 24/7, every single word out his mouth, if he repeated himself 12 times (unfortunately not remotely uncommon), the one of 12 you heard about was the one capable of being misconstrued.  Either every "journalist" in the room was an unmitigated moron or they weren't there to report with honestly.  Take your pick.

Quote
F-U-C-K HIM. Stop debating the disgusting fascist.

I am far far from anything resembling a fascist, even with the fake modern re-writes of the definition.  But I get it, you have to use bad associations, whether or not true when you're spouting false outrage and making personal attacks without basis.

Quote
He's consciously trying to serve the overthrow of American democracy which Trump is attempting, just because he likes his poliics and he doesn't care if he should overthrow democracy to do so. Every pretense otherwise on his part is itself a lie.

And again with the liar.  I said from the very first post, this is almost certainly ending with Biden in office.  I've never asked for anything but a proper vetting of the issues.  I'm incredibly disturbed by the ongoing DNC efforts to destroy any fraud controls on voting and I do think its because they engage in fraud constantly.  I don't think there is any other reasonable explanation that holds up to any kind of intellectual scrutiny.  Every single election there are law suits to change the rules, to change the districts to steal power from the proper ELECTED OFFICIALS and exercise it solely through unelected bureacrats and judicial officers.  NONE OF THAT is consistent with our Constitution or the concepts of us being a Democracy.

I have a problem with that.  And I have a problem with being called a liar by someone who couldn't care less what the truth actually is. 

But even more I have a problem with the number of people who don't care about falsifying or proving an election.  A real vetting is going to reveal one of 3 things:  1. there was fraud that changed the result, 2. there wasn't fraud that changed the result (there could still be fraud), or 3. our current systems don't leave us any way all to determine if there was fraud or its extent.  Those results are absolutely critical to our actual Democracy.  We have to be able to trust that elections are fair, and if the answer is 1 or 3 we can't ever do that again (and we all know the answer is 3).
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on January 05, 2021, 04:36:16 AM
Quote
Still can't address my points so you have to go with the ad hominem?

I remember how Seriati had claimed that Harris had repeatedly claimed she'd never be vaccinated with a vaccine discovered during the Trump administration. Then I looked it up, and gee, she'd never said anything like that -- and Seriati instead of a simple line saying he misremembered or whatnot, he wrote five paragraphs about Harris's EEVIL motivations in doing so.

Not what an honest person does. The tactic of a malicious propagandist instead. Speak the lie that you believe won't be looked up. Then when people do investigate and call you out on it, distract distract distract distract, move the topic to something else, while never acknowledging you'd accused them of something different initially.

Seriati also forgoed the right for anyone to "address his points" the moment he flipped back and forth (without acknowledging he did so) of (a) how it's odd that only the swing-states such-and-such (b) how it's odd that even Alabama such-and-such, then (c) but it's odd that only the swing-states such-and-such -- while also sprinkling throughout how it's far easier for Democrats to commit fraud because they control the system, and they control it even seemingly in a state as red as Alabama when he also found the same things "odd".

So the liar should *censored* off. People take time out of their lives to answer his points but he doesn't give a *censored*, because he never believes the "points" he's saying either. His purpose is exactly to tire them out and make them waste their time with crap he's throwing at them, while making it sound there's a legitimate debate on the issue, rather than one person throwing random crap and other people trying to clean it up. It's called "Gish-galloping". He doesn't care about the accuracy of any single thing he says, the point is to overwhelm with quantity.

Quote
What "plain facts" am I obfuscating?  My rhetoric jumps from point to point, because I'm responding to the nonsense that gets thrown at me, be happy to focus on actual facts and a specific argument.  Pick one:

How is the current practice of judicial or executive modification of legislative election rules consistent with the U.S. Constitution?  I even gave you the roadmap on that, but please provide something more than a bald opinion.

How is it "propaganda" to dispute an election where illegal votes, depending on the Constitutional interpretation above, outweigh decisively the margin of victory?

Here's another cute sign of deliberate obfuscation and dishonesty, and how Seriati jumps from point to point -- the way he sometimes speaks about "illegal votes" as votes fraudulently cast (or fraudulently counted) by people desiring to commit election fraud, and the other half of the time he speaks about illegal votes, as votes that were legitimately cast by people legitimately voting, but eh perhaps two months after the election Seriati selectively decided that those states whose outcome he doesn't like (and ONLY those) perhaps (or perhaps not) did something unconstitutional in how they changed their "election rules", while of course ignoring all those states like Texas who perhaps also did the same. As long as they supported Trump, it's all good.

So what is "illegal voting" here -- a vote that doesn't actually reflect the intended will of the legitimate electorate, i.e. election fraud -- or a vote that Seriati wants to throw out on a supposed technicality even though it actually does reflect the indended will of the voter at the time, and the voter did nothing wrong, but the election officials did?

Well, it will mean whatever Seriati wants it to mean at whatever point in time. It will mean it selectively on the states that Seriati wants to throw out for whatever reason. Not Texas itself or any other state that voted for Trump, oh no, that voted 'correctly' regardless of whatever unconstitutional crap they did.

Quote
So why don't you prove the lie after lie.  I'm not accepting third party work on this.  Go read this transcript and prove out the "lie" after "lie" told by Trump, showing the knowing falsehoods that he's passing on.

Here's the weasel word "knowing" -- as without a lie detector beyond current technology, it's impossible to "prove" whether Trump deliberately speaks ANY lie or not.

In the meantime, Trump still claimed that "Now it turns out that Brad R's brother works for China". (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1344142388063821825)
This is a falsehood, as easily proven by the fact that Brad Raffensperger doesn't have a brother.
Trump still hasn't taken down the tweet or retracted or apologized for the accusation.

But see, it's possible that Trump still hasn't been informed that Brad R doesn't have a brother.
So we can't "prove" that's a lie. We can't "prove" that it's a continuing lie as long as Trump keeps the tweet up without correcting it or apologizing for it.

Nobody can prove Trump a liar because -insert postmodernist crap about the impossibility of proving anything-. So anyone who calls Trump a liar must be a liar themselves. Because in the case of Trump's accusers we CAN prove it, what you didn't think that the same logic should be applied in both cases, did you? /s

Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on January 05, 2021, 09:31:13 AM
Any one who listens to the GA SOS phone call and does not see Trump trying to extort votes is lacking in comprehension. Almost every legal scholar sees this as a violation of state and federal law. Trump will probably pardon himself for the Federal crime, but my guess is he will be prosecuted on a state level.

With all that is going on in the world, Trump is focused on one thing.  Not finding out who did the cyber attack.  Not working on a plan for the vaccine. But on trying to extort a few thousand votes so he can win one state.

Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: rightleft22 on January 05, 2021, 10:50:33 AM
Any one who listens to the GA SOS phone call and does not see Trump trying to extort votes is lacking in comprehension. Almost every legal scholar sees this as a violation of state and federal law. Trump will probably pardon himself for the Federal crime, but my guess is he will be prosecuted on a state level.

With all that is going on in the world, Trump is focused on one thing.  Not finding out who did the cyber attack.  Not working on a plan for the vaccine. But on trying to extort a few thousand votes so he can win one state.

Trump showed he real politician. In the hour long phone call he speaks clearly and carefully (unlike his usual ramblings showing once again he knows exactly what he's doing when he communicates as he does)

Trump dances on the line of extortion but I suspect Seriati is correct on this one.

Trump knew exactly what he was doing and we all know what Trump was trying to do, but making the case it was illegal is another thing. Once again he will not be held accountable for the seeds he is sowing. The opposite actually, his base will see the call as proof of fraud. It would not surprise me if it was Trump that released the recording.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on January 05, 2021, 10:56:11 AM
The SOS of GA released the tape.  He had been burnt before with the Lindsay Grahm phone call, and since GA is a single party recording state, they recorded the phone call.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on January 05, 2021, 11:24:21 AM
Trump had first accused Brad Raffensperger on a tweet:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1345731043861659650
"I spoke to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger yesterday about Fulton County and voter fraud in Georgia. He was unwilling, or unable, to answer questions such as the “ballots under table” scam, ballot destruction, out of state “voters”, dead voters, and more. He has no clue!"

The phone conversation was released so that people can determine by themselves whether Trump's accusation was true or a lie.

As far as I can tell from the transcript the accusation was all a lie, and they were able to answer all his questions, it's just that he doesn't accept any answer that he doesn't like. For example in regards to "ballot destruction", there's this part:

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-georgia-phone-call-transcript-brad-raffensperger-recording
----
President Trump: (30:39)
What about the ballots, the shredding of the ballots, have they been shredding ballots?

Ryan Germany: (30:44)
The only investigation that we have into that, they have not been shredding any ballots. There was an issue in Cobb County where they were doing normal office shredding, getting rid of old stuff, and we investigated that. But this stuff from past elections.

President Trump: (31:00)
Well, I don’t know about that [crosstalk 00:31:02]. It doesn’t pass the smell test though, because we hear they’re shredding thousands and thousands of ballots. And now what they’re saying, “Oh, we’re just cleaning up the office.” I don’t think that-

Brad Raffensperger: (31:16)
Mr. President, the problem that you have with social media, people can say anything.

President Trump: (31:21)
Oh this isn’t social media. This is Trump media. It’s not social media. It’s really not, it’s not social media. I don’t care about social media. I couldn’t care less. Social media is Big Tech. Big Tech is on your side. I don’t even know why you have a side because you should want to have an accurate election. And you’re a Republican.

----

So Trump hears a supposed rumor from the "Trump media" (whatever that is), then if the officials say that it's not true, they've looked into it and it's just not true, he rejects their answers, accuses them in person of being on the 'other side', and accuses them in public of being unable or unwilling to answer it.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: rightleft22 on January 05, 2021, 11:58:43 AM
Trump is either delusional or lying Psychopath . I suspect the latter, a psychopath that has drunk his own cool aid.

For reasons I don't understand history shows that many people are attracted to such people. 
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on January 05, 2021, 12:47:49 PM
Trump is either delusional or lying Psychopath . I suspect the latter, a psychopath that has drunk his own cool aid.

My main theory is that he's crazy, he really believes he couldn't have lost because rally size, and that he's surrounded now by sycophants who feed his bs.  I said that earlier. 

That being said, there is an argument to be made that he just doesn't care about anything but winning, and that this is just another one of his strategies.  He doesn't care about truth.  He just wants to win.  He doesn't care about justice or fairness or decorum or character.  He just wants to win.  Whining is just one of his strategies.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/08/11/politics/donald-trump-refutes-third-party-run-report/index.html

Quote
For reasons I don't understand history shows that many people are attracted to such people.

I think he had a great deal of attraction to some conservatives because he "was a winner".  So many conservatives just felt crushed by Obama being McCain and Romney.  I don't really understand why.  But they felt desperate and were attracted to something new and different and they were desperate for someone to protect them from Progressivism and Liberalism etc, and when he won he was their hero.  This is one of my theories. 

This theory suggests that now that he's lost, he's going to lose some of that support.  And lo and behold, he's losing approval from conservatives and republicans on the gallup presidential approval polls.  They're probably even worse now than they were a few weeks ago.  But he's near all time lows with Republicans.  He'll probably continue to lose support.  I believe that the 12 Apostles of Trump are simply trying to grab those Trump voters.  Eventually, after showing that they "fought" in their stupid show in Congress, they will turn on Trump or try and get his blessing to be the "next Trump". 

But he still has that hard block of voters he started with in July/August of 2015.  These are the guys who just hate the elites.  I said so back in January of 2017 and got a bunch of pushback.  But that's his core constituency.  People who hate "elites".  Whether it's MSM or establishment Republicans or doctors or liberal professors or whatever. 
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Fenring on January 05, 2021, 12:59:54 PM
That being said, there is an argument to be made that he just doesn't care about anything but winning, and that this is just another one of his strategies.  He doesn't care about truth.  He just wants to win.  He doesn't care about justice or fairness or decorum or character.  He just wants to win.  Whining is just one of his strategies.

If that is to be the charge against him then many, MANY in politics are guilty as charged. Most of them, really. It's all about power and getting it whatever way you can. Placating the people is a means to an end, not the end. So it's sort of like the Roman Republic in that sense for many of these people. I think the main difference between Trump and the others is his manner and tone in doing what they do; he uses weird rhetoric, repetition, and 'whining' (as you put it) to achieve the end, but it's the same end others have. They just do it in more politic and aesthetically pleasing ways and try to make it look like something other than what it is. It has been my theory more or less since the start that what many people don't like about him is mainly aesthetic: how he talks, the language he uses, being direct and aggressive rather than indirect and passive-aggressive, even how he looks. From the start of the GOP 2016 primaries he had so many detractors, and back then it wasn't about the current narratives of "fascist" and "would-be-dictator" and "criminal", it was about his character and his aspect. But mostly his aspect, since 'character' doesn't really matter to most voters, as has now been proved. He had a bad look for a smooth politician, plain and simple, and he aggravated people. They just didn't like him, and any reasons to justify that (of which there are perhaps many to draw from) come a posteriori. It is easy to come up with such reasons, but the desire to employ them preceded the reasoning behind them.

I always thought Trump was the dark underbelly of the current political system. I still think that anything people dislike about him should be answered with a long look in a mirror. He may be a funhouse mirror of the reality, but it's merely an exaggeration, not an outright anomaly. Don't like political spin and spewing out nonsense? Look in a mirror. Don't like underhanded tactics and cheating? Look in a mirror. Don't like disrespect for opponents? Look in a mirror. He just does it in a grosser and less veiled way.

That's my 2c on whether Trump is crazy. I think he is merely the spokesperson of the crazies, even those on the other side. If the political insanity in America didn't exist then neither would his success.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: rightleft22 on January 05, 2021, 01:23:19 PM
Quote
But he still has that hard block of voters he started with in July/August of 2015.  These are the guys who just hate the elites.

Begs the question of what and who are the elites.
It seems today the only place the elite are allowed is in sport. Any where else we do not trust them unless of course they fit our image, but then who is the elitist?
It is ourselves we hate?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on January 05, 2021, 01:25:09 PM

If that is to be the charge against him then many, MANY in politics are guilty as charged. Most of them, really.

There have certainly been some whiners in American politics.  But never to this extent.  Gore didn't whine this bad.  Neither did Clinton.  Nor did every other single candidate for the Presidency.  I can't think of a single American politician who has whined as much as Trump.  Who has refused to admit defeat to this level of lacking grace.  Maybe Stacy Abrams?  Has she ever conceded?  I don't know to what level she whined to Kempf about being both the Sec of State and the one who beat her.  I'm welcome for a list of names if you have them Fenring.  But let's face it.  Trump is the Whinius Optimus Maximus Mundus.  He's the best and greatest. 

Quote
he uses weird rhetoric, repetition, and 'whining'

Whining is actually the word he used, though he was responding to a quote made by Rich Lowery, that deep state RINO editor-in-chief of National Review.  The one with the evil lair under Washington Heights who summoned Bill Buckley's wraith. 

Quote
From the start of the GOP 2016 primaries he had so many detractors, and back then it wasn't about the current narratives of "fascist" and "would-be-dictator" and "criminal", it was about his character and his aspect. But mostly his aspect, since 'character' doesn't really matter to most voters, as has now been proved. He had a bad look for a smooth politician, plain and simple, and he aggravated people. They just didn't like him, and any reasons to justify that (of which there are perhaps many to draw from) come a posteriori. It is easy to come up with such reasons, but the desire to employ them preceded the reasoning behind them.

Character is destiny.  The people who didn't care about character got what they deserved.  I defend my proclivity to dislike individuals who lie, cheat, are without humility, who whine, who lack grace.  You're right.  I never did like him.  I feel justified for not doing so. 

Quote
I still think that anything people dislike about him should be answered with a long look in a mirror.

I'm unsure if you are speaking about me personally or about my political leanings.  I don't lie, and the people around me wouldn't put up with me if I did.  I'd end up fired and divorced.  I don't have the benefit of having a slumlord father granting me millions of dollars in New York real estate. 

As to my political animals, I'm sure that some of you can contest the statements, but I don't believe that Romney or McCain were liars either.  I believe there is plenty of wiggle room in politics.  But pure lies regarding statements of material fact are not part of this wiggle room.  I believe that Romney and McCain were men of character, and I would stress that at the very least, they had more character than the Pussy Grabber in Chief. 

Quote
Don't like political spin and spewing out nonsense? Look in a mirror. Don't like underhanded tactics and cheating? Look in a mirror. Don't like disrespect for opponents? Look in a mirror. He just does it in a grosser and less veiled way.

I have very low expectations from politicians.  And I have been disappointed, but this is mainly due to Trump sycophancy.  But saying they're all the same is wrong.  They're not and you know it.  You even admit that he does it in a grosser and less veiled way.  And I personally can look in the mirror and say that I am not guilty of any of those things.  I will admit that I have character faults and probably should never be allowed to hold public office.  I would probably end up being worse than Trump.  But I don't need to be an angel to vote.  I just need to know the difference between a man or woman of character and virtue, and a piece of *censored*. 
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on January 05, 2021, 01:35:21 PM
Begs the question of what and who are the elites.
It seems today the only place the elite are allowed is in sport. Any where else we do not trust them unless of course they fit our image, but then who is the elitist?
It is ourselves we hate?

To start with, the elites are the people that are against Trump.  That's the most important part.  Trump isn't an elite, despite qualifying several times over.  He is the Orange Messiah.  A man of the people.

1.  The elites have power.  Politicians.  Media personalities.  Sports figures.  Celebrities.  Deep State civil servants.  Etc.

2.  The elites have money.  Politicians.  Media personalities.  Sports figures.  Celebrities.  Bankers.  Doctors.  Lawyers.  CEOs.  Corporations.  Wall Street.

3.  The elites have education.  The more education the more elite. They went to Ivy League Schools.  They have college degrees.  Lawyers.  Doctors.  Bankers. CEOs.  College professors.  PhDs. 

4.  The elites have failed you.  They are responsible for the failures.  Everything that has gone wrong is the fault of the elites.  They have conspired to deprive you of what you are owed. 


"The Elites" are the enemy.  The same way the Jews were the enemy invented by Nazi Germany.  Except that Trumpists don't want to kill all the elites.  They actually want to be elites. 
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Fenring on January 05, 2021, 01:43:08 PM
Begs the question of what and who are the elites.

In the sense Seriati meant it I assume he means the same people who are a part of the deep state, which is a contentious and strange-sounding way for calling something that everyone knows exists, which is the upper classes. America doesn't understand about classes so naturally one has to resort to weird terms like "the elites". It means super-rich and influential people who make or break entire industries, and it means people who man powerful organizations through rich tons of money flows. It basically means the brokers of the movement of wealth; either the possessors or the cleaninghouses of vast amounts of capital. The spice must flow.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: TheDrake on January 05, 2021, 01:48:50 PM
Quote
"The Elites" are the enemy.  The same way the Jews were the enemy invented by Nazi Germany.  Except that Trumpists don't want to kill all the elites.  They actually want to be elites.

I'd expand on that. I don't think they want to be elites, they want to be looked at as their equals without really changing who they are or how they live. Trump has power and money and a college degree, but he'd never be considered elite because he embraces the common person. He talks like them, acts like them, and essentially loves them.

The elites all agree that low flow shower heads make sense. The masses chafe against rules, especially when they feel they are being imposed on them arbitrarily.

In Russia, they were called the intelligentsia, and eventually the bolsheviks had enough of their *censored*.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Fenring on January 05, 2021, 01:49:14 PM
I can't think of a single American politician who has whined as much as Trump.  Who has refused to admit defeat to this level of lacking grace.  Maybe Stacy Abrams?  Has she ever conceded?  I don't know to what level she whined to Kempf about being both the Sec of State and the one who beat her.  I'm welcome for a list of names if you have them Fenring.  But let's face it.  Trump is the Whinius Optimus Maximus Mundus.  He's the best and greatest. 

Grant, I'm not talking about whining as anything other than a tactic. I guess you could suppose his whining is not a tactic but is merely a character flaw he can't help but exercise, and that it has nothing to do with achieving a result. Personally I assume he thinks it will get him something, or at least maybe get him something. Use any trick you can, even if it's not pretty. People like that quickly learn what will get them something and what won't, and perhaps it's sad that certain things will work in life but that's what it is. I'm not saying that he's just a reflection of history's whiners, that's a misreading of what I wrote. I meant that he will use anything tactic he thinks will achieve success, and in his case apparently that includes whining. Hillary would never whine, but it's only because she had other tools she preferred to employ that suited her look and her tastes. I don't particular think hers better more virtuous tools, merely less ugly in their public sheen. Likewise with billionaires who employ vast amounts of funds to undermine the public trust; they are not 'whining their way to victory', but they *are* using their preferred tools to attain victory. The virtue of it in all these cases is irrelevant, that is not their intention. It is a purely practical case of do what works, whatever that is. You avoid immoral or unseemly things because they will harm your chances, not because they are wrong. That is the sort of person I mean. It's just that Trump's chosen methods are ugly to many people, not that he is uniquely prone to doing anything it takes to win. That is what 'look in the mirror' means. I means that being partisan involves, among other things, doing anything it takes to win, which indirectly endorses Trump's methods whatever side you're on.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: yossarian22c on January 05, 2021, 01:53:46 PM
Quote
"The Elites" are the enemy.  The same way the Jews were the enemy invented by Nazi Germany.  Except that Trumpists don't want to kill all the elites.  They actually want to be elites.

Trump has power and money and a college degree, but he'd never be considered elite because he embraces the common person. He talks like them, acts like them, and essentially loves them.

Satire?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: TheDrake on January 05, 2021, 02:18:51 PM
Quote
"The Elites" are the enemy.  The same way the Jews were the enemy invented by Nazi Germany.  Except that Trumpists don't want to kill all the elites.  They actually want to be elites.

Trump has power and money and a college degree, but he'd never be considered elite because he embraces the common person. He talks like them, acts like them, and essentially loves them.

Satire?

Absolutely not. He adores the MAGA army because of their undying love for him. He's inarticulate like them, crude like them, and mistrustful of the government. He clearly shows some sort of adoration for people working in manufacturing, which most politicians pretend to do, but Trump pulls it off in a way that the political elites like John Kerry or John McCain could never do. Maybe you just object to my use of "common person" in which case you can substitute his base if you prefer.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on January 05, 2021, 02:32:31 PM
The virtue of it in all these cases is irrelevant, that is not their intention. It is a purely practical case of do what works, whatever that is. You avoid immoral or unseemly things because they will harm your chances, not because they are wrong. That is the sort of person I mean. It's just that Trump's chosen methods are ugly to many people, not that he is uniquely prone to doing anything it takes to win. That is what 'look in the mirror' means. I means that being partisan involves, among other things, doing anything it takes to win, which indirectly endorses Trump's methods whatever side you're on.

This is everything that is wrong with the modern conception of politics.  Doing something because it brings you gain, victory, money, fame, whatever, and calling it good simply because it worked, is the very definition of immorality.  Read Cicero. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  War is not politics.  Politics is not war.  Whatever Clausewitz meant is not what some people want it to mean.  Doing anything it takes to win, or being partisan, is immoral.  You cannot trust someone who does anything it takes to win in politics.  They're not fighting for anything but themselves.  I've made this post at least twice already.  You cannot defeat your enemies in politics like you can in war.  War may be a continuation of politics, but it is a line you cross where you throw out the rules and are strictly utilitarian.  I understand the moral clarity and finality.  But once you cross that line, your enemy will keep raising the stakes until you're killing each other. 

Doing whatever it takes to win is something every kid in America understands is wrong.  I don't understand how some adults can no longer comprehend this. 
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on January 05, 2021, 02:37:28 PM
He clearly shows some sort of adoration for people working in manufacturing, which most politicians pretend to do, but Trump pulls it off in a way that the political elites like John Kerry or John McCain could never do.

Oh yeah.  Real love there.  How's American manufacturing doing, by the way? 

I think maybe we have different definitions of love. 
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on January 05, 2021, 02:38:56 PM
Satire?

Oh, no.  See rule zero.  Trump cannot be elite because he's a man of the people.  Oh yeah.  There is your proof. 
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: yossarian22c on January 05, 2021, 02:39:35 PM
Quote
"The Elites" are the enemy.  The same way the Jews were the enemy invented by Nazi Germany.  Except that Trumpists don't want to kill all the elites.  They actually want to be elites.

Trump has power and money and a college degree, but he'd never be considered elite because he embraces the common person. He talks like them, acts like them, and essentially loves them.

Satire?

Absolutely not. He adores the MAGA army because of their undying love for him. He's inarticulate like them, crude like them, and mistrustful of the government. He clearly shows some sort of adoration for people working in manufacturing, which most politicians pretend to do, but Trump pulls it off in a way that the political elites like John Kerry or John McCain could never do. Maybe you just object to my use of "common person" in which case you can substitute his base if you prefer.

Its the essentially loves them part that I thought was overboard. I get he loves their adoration but to say he loves them doesn't fit with Trump's me, me, personality.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on January 05, 2021, 02:43:28 PM
Trump's love of his followers is like his love of the military.  He likes the idea but despises the actual individual people.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on January 05, 2021, 03:10:13 PM
Deep in the dark lair of National Review, buried underneath Washington Heights in Manhattan, Kevin Williamson snaps the neck of a pleading white West Virginia coal miner.  The sound of the begging miner stops abruptly and the snap of the vertebra reverberates around the dungeon.  Williamson shuffles into his torture chamber and sits down on a stone died dark red with the blood of god fearing patriots and begins to carve this newsletter into the stretched out skin of another miner with a single talon:

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-tuesday/trumps-final-insult/

Quote
There is some truth to the cliché holding that liars think everybody lies, that cheaters think everybody cheats, that thieves think everybody else steals, etc. Understood as an emotional self-defense strategy, that has a great deal of explanatory power: We may talk about having the “fear of God” in us, but what people actually fear is social rejection, which is why people with a paralyzing fear of public speaking are considered entirely normal while people with an insistent terror of eternal damnation are judged fanatics and crackpots. We tell our children that there is nowhere to hide in “But everybody else is doing it!” when that isn’t quite true. A vice is not a problem — an unusual vice is a problem. An unusual virtue, or an unusual practice of personal discipline, can be an even bigger problem — ask someone who doesn’t drink how often some interested party inquires, politely or not: “What’s wrong with you? Are you an alcoholic in recovery? A Mormon? A moral scold? On a diet?” Subtext: “Are you implying that there’s something wrong with me?”

Quote
Beyond the social consideration, the phenomenon that old fraud Sigmund Freud called “projection,” a term and concept popularized by his followers, offers a degree of moral exculpation as well. Business swindlers and political hucksters are particularly prone to it, usually affecting a jaded, man-of-the-world attitude: “I didn’t make the rules!” or “That’s just how business is done!” or “Politics ain’t beanbag!”

Quote
And so it is no great surprise to find President Donald Trump and cronies complaining about election fraud even as President Donald Trump and his cronies were recorded in a telephone call attempting to suborn election fraud, threatening the Georgia secretary of state — a Republican, note — with criminal prosecution unless he should “find,” discovering by some black art, enough votes to swing the state’s election Trump’s way.

I have on many occasions criticized the abuse of the word coup in our politics, but that is what this is: an attempted coup d’état under color of law. It would be entirely appropriate today to impeach Trump a second time and remove him from office before his term ends.

No one who has participated in this poisonous buffoonery should ever hold office again. There was a time when there was a plausible if sometimes self-serving rationale for working for the Trump administration — that the president is a clueless poseur surrounded by crackpots and frauds, and that he desperately needs good counsel from responsible adults. But the Trump administration is not currently under the guiding influence of any such responsible adults — and there simply is no defending what it is up to. This cannot be excused or explained away.

Trump’s media cheerleaders, who like to call themselves constitutionalists and patriots, are no such thing. They are, for the most part, profiteers who will justify anything if it helps them to hold on to one point of audience share as they peddle their various blends of snake oil. “Woe unto them that call evil good and justify the wicked for gain.”

There was never any reason to trust them in the first place, but the events that have transpired since Election Day provide superabundant reason to understand them as an impediment to the conservative movement they purport to champion and a danger to the country they purport to love. If history remembers them at all, it will be as grovelers and hustlers, holding out for one last payday, a ride on Air Force One, or, in some cases, a presidential pardon.

I suppose the conservative movement might have to build a future without too much input from Lindsey Graham and Sean Hannity. The republic will survive that loss, I am confident.

Quote
It is worth keeping in mind that the mess of pottage they have received as their end of the bargain is pretty thin gruel. They mocked Mitt Romney and John McCain as “gentlemen losers,” but very little of that “winning” they talked about came to pass. The Trump administration is a thoroughgoing failure on the president’s own terms: The administration has managed to reorder worldwide trade relations — by witlessly facilitating the creation of a new trade pact between China and the European Union, an alliance of the world’s second- and third-largest economies at the expense of the one that remains, for now, the largest. China is in a stronger geopolitical position today than it was in 2016, and the United States is diminished. Trump focused on the trade deficit, which is the wrong policy, but he can’t even get that right: Our trade deficits are larger than ever. On immigration, there is no big, beautiful wall paid for by Mexico, nor has there been any broad reform of U.S. immigration law. The president spent the critical early days of the coronavirus epidemic trying to tweet the virus into submission because he feared a declining stock market would hurt his reelection chances. He has uttered more lies himself than can be counted, and he sent his minions out to tell countless more. He has dishonored, disfigured, and debased everything he has touched. It has been a shameful spectacle.

So, no, not a Mitt Romney–style “gentleman loser.” Just a regular loser, one who is too dim and too lame to understand that the “gentleman” part isn’t the problem and never has been. The Republicans who were all too willing to swap their honor for a little bit of political power have been, like most people who have done business with Donald Trump over the years, ripped off. And there is no moral-bankruptcy court in which to try to recover a portion of their losses.

There are some Republicans who lament that the Trump movement has transformed the Republican Party into a profit-oriented conspiracy cult. Many Democrats insist that this is not the case and prefer to believe that the Trump movement simply revealed what the Republican Party already was and long had been. Whatever is at work here, it isn’t ideology: Many of the worst Trump sycophants haven’t been fire-eating conservatives but East Coast moderates such as Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie; unlike, say, Ted Cruz, Trump himself is not a product of conservative institutions, and such conservative ideas as he has were acquired the day before yesterday, when he jettisoned his prior enthusiasms (“I am very pro-choice,” etc.) in his bid for the presidency. For my own part, I believe that the Republican Party has been both mutilated and laid bare at the same time. It will be a very long time before it can with a straight face once again call itself the Party of Lincoln, though it may aspire to be that once again. Party of Lincoln? The Republican Party would have to undergo the political equivalent of one of those reality-television makeovers if it wanted to stand so tall as to be the Party of Gerald Ford.

The modern Republican Party, whatever it was, is gone, even if much of the staff and the incorporation papers remain.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: rightleft22 on January 05, 2021, 03:16:13 PM
By Definition Trump is a élite. I would argue the kind of élite to whom the rules do not apply, the kind of elite his follower hate.
However he is not a elite because his followers view him as one of them and so set him up on a pedestal.... a elite status.
 
The followers seeing Trump as one of them become the elite... who they hate and can't trust? They have created what they fear.

Their is some weird psychological crap going on...
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on January 05, 2021, 03:33:46 PM
By Definition Trump is a élite.

Oh no.  Trump cannot be an elite.  Read rule zero.  Rule zero states:  "The elites are the people that are against Trump". 

Trump cannot be against himself.  So he is not an elite.

Sean Hannity is a millionaire media personality, but is for Trump.  Not an elite.

Jerry Falwell Jr is a millionaire celebrity religious figure with enormous power.  Not an elite. 

Sebastian Gorka has a PhD.  Not an elite.

Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: rightleft22 on January 05, 2021, 03:47:25 PM
Of course that is not logical - which I guess proves that the followers and Trump are not elites
Its a neat trick.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Wayward Son on January 05, 2021, 05:49:17 PM
Wayward,

Please call it Trumpism.

Sorry, msquared, but it's Republicanism.

I direct you to the Republican Party platform for the 2020 election as proof, which made Donald J. Trump the official spokesman and definer of what Republicanism is.  The Republican party agreed to this platform, so all Republicans should take responsibility for it.

If it's not your platform, it's not your party. ;)
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Seriati on January 05, 2021, 06:11:20 PM
Any one who listens to the GA SOS phone call and does not see Trump trying to extort votes is lacking in comprehension.

Maybe try reading the transcript then.  There isn't even a close question.  Trump repeatedly hammers down on what he claims are hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes, including every time he discusses the 11k votes that need to be found.  He leads into those references by flat out saying they identified several times more than that already to the Secretary of State.  Literally Trump walks through 6 or 7 sources of illegal votes when he talks about finding 11k votes. 

He's 100% asking GA to find 11k fraudulent votes in the sources he's identified.  If he's right its asking for the elimination of 11k of several hundred thousand fraudulent pro-Biden votes.

This is even more obvious where he follows up one of these 11k vote statements, by stating that they've found more than that already and then asking about whether there are also provisional ballots to be counted.  He mentioned earlier that some of his voters arrived at the polls and were denied a vote after having been told they'd already voted by mail.  Which by the way, if that's true, it's 100% proof of fraud, either by that person trying to vote twice or by someone else having stolen their vote - there's no way out of that conclusion.

Did anyone ask him if he was asking for fraud?  Doesn't appear so, even after Trump flat out told the GA SoS that he was risking criminal charges for allowing a fraud to occur (which again if Trump is right is actually true), Raffensberger didn't ask for any clarification.  And that's because he knew real time that he was being asked to find the fraudulent votes and nothing more.

I mean, "Fellas, I need 11,000 votes.  Give me a break.  You know, we have that in spades already.  Or we can keep it going."  That was immediately after describing hundreds of thousands of votes "dumped" into Fulton county - Trump was asking that the voter signatures be compared to signatures on file - as GA law requires and as Raffensberger overruled (Raffensberger agreed that they would only be compared with the 2020 signatures  and not those on file).  He immediately followed it by repeating his claim that 18k fraudulent votes were added in the GA video.  Again, there's no reasonable doubt about the ask - here's hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes, go verify them and I'm sure we'll find more than 11k fraudulent ones for Biden.  It's not an ask to eliminate legal votes, but for Raffensberger to actually do his job and eliminate illegal votes.

Or you could look at the sections discussing Dominion where Trump says they don't need to raise issues with Dominion because he won GA by "hundreds of thousands of votes" and the current margin is only 11k.  "[W]e don't need Dominion because we have so many other votes that we don't need to prove it any more than we have."

Or Trump's lawyer (after the 11k claim had been made at least 3 times without any challenge or comment):  "Ryan, I would just like to suggest that just the four categories that have already been mentioned by the President that have actually hard numbers of 24,249 votes that were counted illegally that in an of itself is sufficient to change the [unitelligible] or place the outcome in doubt."

So to put it back to you, anyone claiming Trump is asking for fraudulent votes to be added to that total is either lacking comprehension or engaging in a Big Lie.

Quote
Almost every legal scholar sees this as a violation of state and federal law. Trump will probably pardon himself for the Federal crime, but my guess is he will be prosecuted on a state level.

Exactly what law does demanding that fraudulent votes not be counted violate?  What law does identifying those fraudulent votes violate?  Or demanding to see proof that they were legal and not just to take the SoS's word for it?  What law is violated by asking that 1 out of every 20 fraudulent votes that you believe you've identified be found?

It is against the law to count fraudulent ballots.  I've yet to find the law that makes illegal to exclude illegal ballots.

What law is violated by demanding that signature verification be conducted in the manner that the GA legislature passed AS THE LAW and that the SoS changed in a consent decree/settlement agreement?

I find appeals to authority troubling on the best day, but appeals to "almost every legal scholar" to be completely nonsensical, unverifiable claptrap.  A better way to say it is that the legal scholar's selected by CNN and MSNBC are referenced as saying this.

Quote
With all that is going on in the world, Trump is focused on one thing.  Not finding out who did the cyber attack.  Not working on a plan for the vaccine. But on trying to extort a few thousand votes so he can win one state.

I think Trump is focused on demonstrating that he won what he believes are 6 more states than certified results in his favor.  Some of the statistical pieces are revealing either that fraud occurred or that our elections are a bigger mess than anyone ever admitted.

Whether he's fallen into believing unfounded conspiracy theories or whether he really did win and is a victim is what is in dispute.  We the people haven't seen real evidence on which is correct. 

As you can plainly see from the GA call, the SoS of GA is refusing to release the data that would allow Trump's legal team to prove their case or show the President it's not true (maybe for legit reasons, maybe not, he doesn't site the actual rules that he says prevent the release).  In what world is it a reasonable answer to someone that demonstrates possible voter fraud, in very large part enabled by Raffensberger's own actions, that Raffensberger promises he's looked into it and can confidently say it didn't happen?

There is no trust here for good reason.  Transparency should be the rule. 

For example, there should be zero question about how many absentee ballots would have been disqualified (or not) in Fulton county if the law had been applied as written.  The only reason that such a confirmation has not occurred after the election is to avoid creating proof that a fraud did occur.  This should be an easy one to support if you guys are honest about wanting a fair election.  Do the signature check against signatures on file and do it openly with fair observation.  If it turns out there are 10ks of thousands of votes that should have been disqualified then there's proof of illegal voting that you guys want to pretend doesn't exist, if it turns out that the signatures match then a big part of the case for election integrity has been made.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 05, 2021, 06:27:52 PM
"I've yet to find the law that makes it illegal to exclude illegal ballots."

It's the same law Democrats use for people in the U.S. illegally.

Illegal votes and illegal people have the same rights and privileges as legal votes and legal people. Anything else is just pure racism. You can't discriminate against illegals whether they be votes or people because doing so would be the most vile form of cancel worthy racism and the law it violates is the highest law of the land, the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment that makes any type of racism totally and completely illegal, no matter what.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Seriati on January 05, 2021, 06:31:58 PM
This is everything that is wrong with the modern conception of politics.  Doing something because it brings you gain, victory, money, fame, whatever, and calling it good simply because it worked, is the very definition of immorality.  Read Cicero.

Its the very definition of anti-Trumpism as well.  It's the guiding rule covering WhiteHouse press briefings and all interactions of the media with Trump - make yourself famous by insulting the President and phrasing questions as insults rather than requests for information.  It's the guiding rule of the Democratic House - impeach a President for the crimes of our own candidate's son, resist everything, break every precedent requiring fairness, turn every hearing into a lecture.  It's the guiding rule of big tech, suppress and deplatform anyone that says something that hurts the political narrative we want to promote.  It's guiding rule of most of the media, though that's been influential for a long time, it's been colored by a desire to win more than a desire to achieve wealth in this cycle.

Maybe its all Trump, but I think you're wrong.  Everything about the left has been built through decades of mismanagement of education.  Intentionally, converting people from logical thinkers to emotional ones, denying them the tools to think critically or even to consider the consequences of actions, encouraging them to be warriors for the cause and to validate themselves by the emotional feeling of supporting the "good" causes and opposing the "bad" ones rather than judging things based on the grey of the real world. 

It wasn't 10 years ago we could have a policy agreement on something like welfare reform where most everyone understood that our disagreement was about how things best help people and that we were talking about impacts and unintended consequences.  No more, now you're evil if you don't support whatever crazy socialist position the left endorses and you should destroyed, lose your job, lose your friends and be cast out.  If you kill someone you should be let out of prison, but if you disagree with dogma no punishment is too much.

That's not because of Trump.  Trump is just a figurehead for the hate in the hearts of the left.  That hate isn't going to disappear just because Trump is out of office.

Quote
I've said it before and I'll say it again.  War is not politics.  Politics is not war.

No but ignoring that some people believe they are at war isn't going to make it go away.  Cancel culture is a big step on the path to suppression and even murder.  Endorsing and ignoring anti-fa insurgency and even autonomous zones is a big step to setting up morality police.  Eliminating police budgets because it's "racist and privileged" to expect safety is another.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the left is going to be all about unicorns and butterflies if they can get rid of Trump and the "national nightmare" will end. 

Quote
I've made this post at least twice already.  You cannot defeat your enemies in politics like you can in war.

That's true, but if you're already at war you can use and misuse politics to begin the defeat of your enemies.

Quote
Doing whatever it takes to win is something every kid in America understands is wrong.  I don't understand how some adults can no longer comprehend this.

You may want to take another look at what kids are being taught these days.  Simple ideas like, "two wrongs don't make a right" have been forced aside by advanced lessons that only new wrongs can correct the current circumstances.  That's exactly what "anti-racism" involves, expressly racist acts to "correct" the past.  Not to correct past injustices, but to correct the current situation without any requirement to show a connection to a past wrong.  Prisoners are the victims of an "unfair" justice system punished SOLELY by circumstances of class beyond their control.  Bail is nothing but a tax on the poor (no really, its at worst a tax on the criminal), even the idea of law is racist and classist inherently because it was built to favor those who are not criminals.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 05, 2021, 06:35:25 PM
"In what world is it a reasonable answer to someone that demonstrates possible voter fraud, in very large part enabled by Raffensberger's own actions, that Raffensberger promises he's looked into it and can confidently say it didn't happen?"

That's the same world the state government of Hawaii resided in when it said they checked Obama's birth certificate and it was hunky dory. Just have to take their word for it. And that's the same government that also lied outright about the matter when they said that the long form birth certificate that Obama did eventually release was impossible for him to get his hands on even if he came over there in person and demanded it. Why would a government say it couldn't release someone's own information to that very same person? Is Georgia doing something similar right now? If someone says they didn't vote by mail but there is a mail in vote for them is the state of Georgia cooperating to find out what happened? It should be pretty easy to find out where the envelope was processed at least and see if other potentially fraudulent votes were also processed there. Unless of course they already threw out the envelopes.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on January 05, 2021, 06:37:01 PM
Lots of blah blah to distract from the fact that you're blatantly trying to steal an election.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 05, 2021, 06:37:09 PM
One question the left should answer is this:

So how many fraudulent votes were there in this election then?

The honest answer to that question should give them pause but of course it won't.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on January 05, 2021, 06:39:09 PM
So how many fraudulent votes were there in this election then?

AFAIK so far we've found the fraudulent vote of a single Republican voter who voted on Trump of behalf of his dead mother.

So right now, we know of 1 fraudulent Trumpist vote. And 0 fraudulent Democrat votes.

But of course you can make up some different number, spread it as a rumor in the "Trumpist media", then Trump can use the number you make up to demand that it must be the right number, because it was spoken in the Trumpist media, which everyone knows always tells the truth and never makes *censored* up.

Or you could ask wmLambert for the data from the Frankfurt and Spain raids, which he insisted the good guys have. Except that it didn't happen.
Or you could ask Ware County officials for the supposed discrepancies they discovered after examining Dominion machines. Oh, wait, that never happened either.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 05, 2021, 06:40:42 PM
Stole the election...

The political landscape now is like living in a den of thieves.

Hey stop trying to steal that from me!

What?! You stole it first and I'm just taking back what's rightfully mine!

No, you're stealing it!

No, it's you that's the thief!

Hilarious...
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 05, 2021, 06:41:57 PM
So in the whole election there was only one fraudulent vote and it was for Trump.

Good to know.

I'd like a little more investigation into the matter though before we settle on that as the final answer.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on January 05, 2021, 06:42:16 PM
One question the left should answer is this:

So how many fraudulent votes were there in this election then?

The honest answer to that question should give them pause but of course it won't.

The left has informed me that they will answer this question as soon as the right answers this:

How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Tootsie Pop? 

Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: msquared on January 05, 2021, 06:45:55 PM
Cherry

One one has been proved.  If you have evidence  of more please supply it.  And remember the claim on Trumps' side is "massive" fraud. The claim on the other side is small amounts of fraud were possible but not enough to change the outcome.

All of the audit and recounts and other certifications have backed up the claims of the small amount if any. The claims of "massive" fraud have been proven wrong.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on January 05, 2021, 06:46:38 PM
Stole the election...

The political landscape now is like living in a den of thieves.

Hey stop trying to steal that from me!

What?! You stole it first and I'm just taking back what's rightfully mine!

No, you're stealing it!

No, it's you that's the thief!

Hilarious...

Yes, except that it turns out there's only one side here that have been repeatedly been proven to be liars. And it's the Trumpist side. You know the side of the same guy who's admired several other "presidents for life", like Putin and Orban and Erdogan and Kim, and the one who has so little respect for the US constitution that he was arguing he should be allowed to run for a 3rd term after winning the 2nd.

The guy who said his supporters would still support him even if he shot a person in the 5th avenue, and who surprise surprise indeed still support him after he wants to overthrow American democracy.

Why don't you tell us btw about Brad R's non-existent brother, the one Trump insists works for China?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 05, 2021, 06:46:57 PM
Well I'll make the point since it's obvious anyway.

The truth is nobody knows how many votes were fraudulent in this election or any other Presidential election.

So we don't know. We really have no idea. For Democrats to proclaim in the midst of such obvious ignorance that they don't actually know how many votes were fraudulent but they do know for certain that it wasn't very many is not only the height of arrogance but it also doesn't make any sense at all. If you don't know how many it was then how in the world could you possibly know how many it wasn't?

Rhetorical question there. The answer is you can't.

So people may as well stop pretending to know things they don't.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 05, 2021, 06:50:01 PM
Okay let's accept that only one vote in this entire election has been proven to be fraudulent.

That's good because you make the point better than anyone.

We then have a choice of whether or not to believe that either:

A: Only one fraudulent vote was cast in this election or...

B: It's not that easy to prove it when fraudulent votes are cast.

Thanks for making that point so clearly.

Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on January 05, 2021, 06:52:44 PM
Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, and Trumpists Are From Spengo. 
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on January 05, 2021, 06:53:41 PM
The truth is nobody knows how many votes were fraudulent in this election or any other Presidential election.

Postmodernist crap about the supposed unknowability of things.

Strange how you previously said that all these challenges and all these investigation would only help strengthen Biden's "legitimacy".

I called you on your bull*censored* when you first said it, and after a TON of investigations, after a TON of recount, and challenges, and whatever -- gee, I was proven right, and no matter how many times investigations disprove your allegations, you are still on the "but we can't really know things, ever".

Did you ever say that we can't know if Trump won only because of fraud back in 2016? Did you ever say the same about Dubya in 2000 and 2004? Let me guess that of course you didn't.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 05, 2021, 06:56:18 PM
Now to hedge a bit with the disclaimer, the same one Seriati has been using, I admit to not knowing how many fraudulent votes were cast in the election and I have no idea whether or not it was enough to change the results. So far from what I've seen it wasn't enough to change the results since I haven't seen any proof showing otherwise. I would like some more investigation into the matter though and fail to understand how continuing to investigate possible voter fraud is wrong somehow. I will go on the record though as firmly believing that there was definitely more than one fraudulent vote cast in this election and some of those were for Democrats. Did Republicans perpetrate more voter fraud than Democrats? Did it all balance out perfectly? No idea. We need to investigate to find out exactly what happened even if it turns out that, unlikely as it seems, nothing happened at all.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 05, 2021, 06:58:12 PM
To know that one knows what one knows, and to know that one doesn't know what one doesn't know, there lies true wisdom.

Confucius
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Grant on January 05, 2021, 07:04:12 PM
I would like some more investigation into the matter though and fail to understand how continuing to investigate possible voter fraud is wrong somehow.

Because there is a time limit on this stuff, Cherry.  If we had 100 years we could do it over and over again.  They had investigations and didn't find anything.  Nobody has found anything.  Time is up.  It's the same thing I said back during the Kavanaugh hearings.  You can't put the process on hold forever because you want to keep investigating. 

I mean, I really can't believe you're making this argument that we need to keep investigating.  It's the same exact argument the Dems made in 2018.  Keep digging and digging and digging. 

No.  If you have something, show it.  Otherwise you're out of time.  It's that simple. 
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on January 05, 2021, 07:07:48 PM
I would like some more investigation into the matter though and fail to understand how continuing to investigate possible voter fraud is wrong somehow.

The manual recounts all verified that the Dominion machines didn't change the results, and yet that doesn't stop the Trumpists from claiming that the Dominion machines are to blame (in part).

So, instead of investigation about fraud in general, let me just ask: How much investigation into that particular accusation of fraud do you want before you can admit that that particular accusation has been definitively disproven, and anyone who keeps insisting on that particular accusation is either uninformed, an idiot, or a liar?
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: TheDrake on January 05, 2021, 07:18:57 PM
There's what is possible to prove absolutely, like a science experiment, and that which is more statistical in nature. I couldn't tell you how many fraudulent votes were cast, but I know it is wildly improbable that massive fraud was conducted in secret. All of the theories simply don't add up. Secret cabals programming voting machines? Yes, I can't prove such a thing is impossible. I also can't prove that the software collecting votes was messed with and then the hand recounts subverted as well. But I find it implausible that such a thing could occur, and I do not require absolute certainty. Very few things in life come with absolute certainty. It seems some, to be satisfied, would require the type of security and safeguards that we use to control access to nuclear weapons. Why aren't we doing retinal scans, I mean after all that evil cabal can easily have their secret Indonesian factories pump out fake IDs in the name of dead people, right? Or harvest the IDs of senior citizens, attaching their own photos.

To believe in a large amount of fraud, you'd have to believe that there wasn't one person willing to blow the whistle on the operation. You'd have to notice that we actually have caught people voting twice, but somehow that large numbers of others are somehow managing it.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 05, 2021, 10:53:31 PM
Well I'm not in the camp that says Biden shouldn't take office as President. He should take office as President. That's fine.

But that doesn't mean the investigations into voter fraud need to stop either.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on January 06, 2021, 05:07:00 AM
Well I'm not in the camp that says Biden shouldn't take office as President. He should take office as President. That's fine.

But that doesn't mean the investigations into voter fraud need to stop either.

Keep investigating. The problem is that some people seem to think that "still under investigation", as "still undecided" (at best, sometimes it's 'not yet proven guilty in court, but we know he is"), therefore in this case they refuse to treat Biden as the president-elect and want to stop the orderly transition of power.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: yossarian22c on January 07, 2021, 09:17:12 AM
Now to hedge a bit with the disclaimer, the same one Seriati has been using, I admit to not knowing how many fraudulent votes were cast in the election and I have no idea whether or not it was enough to change the results. So far from what I've seen it wasn't enough to change the results since I haven't seen any proof showing otherwise. I would like some more investigation into the matter though and fail to understand how continuing to investigate possible voter fraud is wrong somehow. I will go on the record though as firmly believing that there was definitely more than one fraudulent vote cast in this election and some of those were for Democrats. Did Republicans perpetrate more voter fraud than Democrats? Did it all balance out perfectly? No idea. We need to investigate to find out exactly what happened even if it turns out that, unlikely as it seems, nothing happened at all.

It is almost impossible that there were enough fraudulent votes to change the outcome election.

In terms of not knowing, consider this analogy. I'm pretty sure that no one in my neighborhood is a murderer but I'm absolutely certain none of them are running death camps in their backyards. So I can't know for sure there isn't a murderer around, the probability of their being death squads running rampant is pretty much zero. That doesn't mean we don't pursue individual allegations of voter fraud but it does mean acting like we need to delay the certification or that there was potentially enough fraud to change the outcome is irresponsible.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: Ouija Nightmare on January 07, 2021, 09:59:01 AM
Now to hedge a bit with the disclaimer, the same one Seriati has been using, I admit to not knowing how many fraudulent votes were cast in the election and I have no idea whether or not it was enough to change the results. So far from what I've seen it wasn't enough to change the results since I haven't seen any proof showing otherwise. I would like some more investigation into the matter though and fail to understand how continuing to investigate possible voter fraud is wrong somehow. I will go on the record though as firmly believing that there was definitely more than one fraudulent vote cast in this election and some of those were for Democrats. Did Republicans perpetrate more voter fraud than Democrats? Did it all balance out perfectly? No idea. We need to investigate to find out exactly what happened even if it turns out that, unlikely as it seems, nothing happened at all.

It is almost impossible that there were enough fraudulent votes to change the outcome election.

In terms of not knowing, consider this analogy. I'm pretty sure that no one in my neighborhood is a murderer but I'm absolutely certain none of them are running death camps in their backyards. So I can't know for sure there isn't a murderer around, the probability of their being death squads running rampant is pretty much zero. That doesn't mean we don't pursue individual allegations of voter fraud but it does mean acting like we need to delay the certification or that there was potentially enough fraud to change the outcome is irresponsible.

Flaming Libs like Mitch McConnell have gone on record declaring there was no significant voter fraud.  It’s already been investigated to death. To see “what happened” read the transcript between Trump and Raffensperger.

If you can’t believe the testimony of your career allies then you’ve got into tinfoil hat territory where you’re still going to be arguing over who shot James Garfield a century after people have forgotten that he died from poor medical care.

A better use of investigative resources would be tracking down all the heads on the insurrection that struck the Capitol yesterday and cutting them off. That’s going to keep a lot of people busy for a very long time.

Oh.. and hatching a new security planning for congress because you can bet that our friends around the world have noticed you can take out congress with 4 bus loads of Sunday school children. The movie myth of super competent dedicated protection is gone in a poof of smoke.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: wmLambert on January 07, 2021, 10:27:25 AM
One question the left should answer is this:

So how many fraudulent votes were there in this election then?

The honest answer to that question should give them pause but of course it won't.

The left has informed me that they will answer this question as soon as the right answers this:

How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Tootsie Pop?

Interesting spin. You do realize tht the eye-witness affidavits are evidence? Since no Court has looked at the evidenced, there has been no verificati9on either way..

However; the Democrat paradigm that whistle blowers must be believed seems to demand investigation. That they are adamantly against it is sad.
Title: Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
Post by: yossarian22c on January 07, 2021, 10:39:43 AM
Interesting spin. You do realize tht the eye-witness affidavits are evidence? Since no Court has looked at the evidenced, there has been no verificati9on either way..

Which eye-witnesses? Where? What did they see? You keep saying this. Take the best evidence you have, spell it out here. If you can't make a case for voter fraud anywhere then shut up about it.