What to do with actual election fraud?

[yossarian22c]

"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.

[msquared]

Trump's love of his followers is like his love of the military.  He likes the idea but despises the actual individual people.

[Grant]

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/

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?”

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!”

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.

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.

[rightleft22]

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...

[Grant]

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.

[rightleft22]

Of course that is not logical - which I guess proves that the followers and Trump are not elites
Its a neat trick.

[Wayward Son]

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.

[Seriati]

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.

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.

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.

[cherrypoptart]

"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.

[Seriati]

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.

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. 

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.

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.

[cherrypoptart]

"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.

[Aris Katsaris]

Lots of blah blah to distract from the fact that you're blatantly trying to steal an election.

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[Aris Katsaris]

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.

[cherrypoptart]

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...

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[Grant]

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? 

[msquared]

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.

[Aris Katsaris]

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?

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[Grant]

Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, and Trumpists Are From Spengo. 

[Aris Katsaris]

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.

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[cherrypoptart]

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

[Grant]

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. 

[Aris Katsaris]

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?

[TheDrake]

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.

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[Aris Katsaris]

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.

[yossarian22c]

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.

[Ouija Nightmare]

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.

[wmLambert]

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.

[yossarian22c]

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.