What to do with actual election fraud?

[Aris Katsaris]

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.

[rightleft22]

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

[Wayward Son]

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?

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[DonaldD]

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.

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[Wayward Son]

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?

[kidv]

"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


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?

[DonaldD]

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.   

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[DonaldD]

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.

[yossarian22c]

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.

  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.

[yossarian22c]

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.

[DonaldD]

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?

[TheDeamon]

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.

[yossarian22c]

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?

[TheDeamon]

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.

[TheDeamon]

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.

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.

[TheDeamon]

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.

[DonaldD]

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.

[Grant]

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. 

[msquared]

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.

[LetterRip]

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.

[TheDeamon]

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.

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.

[DonaldD]

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.

[Grant]

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.".   

[LetterRip]

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.

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.

[Grant]

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. 

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. 

[LetterRip]

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.

[yossarian22c]

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?

[msquared]

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.

[DonaldD]

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?

[DonaldD]

More on the Sydney Powell Georgia case - here is an analysis, submitted to the court, 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, and made false statements about said documents:

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.

[wmLambert]

“…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.

[msquared]

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. 

[msquared]

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.

[yossarian22c]

“…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.

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[DonaldD]

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.

[LetterRip]

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.

[msquared]

I wonder why that happened? It couldn't be that the head of the USPS was trying to make that happen would it?

[yossarian22c]

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.

[wmLambert]

...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?

[yossarian22c]

...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.

[DonaldD]

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. 

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.

[Aris Katsaris]

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.

[wmLambert]

...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.

[Seriati]

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/  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

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/

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?

[Aris Katsaris]

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.

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.