Author Topic: What to do with actual election fraud?  (Read 6203 times)

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #100 on: December 07, 2020, 08:13:17 PM »
At this point Seriati, you're just gish-galloping, right? Deliberately making long confusing arguments in 9 paragraphs that you could have done in 3 lines, but you're not making them in 3 lines, because everyone would see how ridiculous they'd look.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look, Biden is a lost cause. Dementia, inability to speak coherently, and a history of plagiarism and lying. He was hidden away to protect his image. The MSM protected him, shrouding him in bubble-wrap. Their toughest questions were about the flavor of ice cream he purchased. Nothing about money laundering and his son's child porn on his lap top. He never had enthusiasm, and the Democrat image-makers pretended the country was just against Trump, regardless of Biden. Doesn't work. Trump won in every category. His success in his governance is undeniable. Best in history. There is literally nothing there to hang a Democrat blue wave upon - except cheating.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2020, 08:15:57 PM by wmLambert »

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #101 on: December 07, 2020, 09:10:24 PM »
Look, Biden is a lost cause. Dementia, inability to speak coherently, and a history of plagiarism and lying. He was hidden away to protect his image. The MSM protected him, shrouding him in bubble-wrap. Their toughest questions were about the flavor of ice cream he purchased. Nothing about money laundering and his son's child porn on his lap top. He never had enthusiasm, and the Democrat image-makers pretended the country was just against Trump, regardless of Biden. Doesn't work. Trump won in every category. His success in his governance is undeniable. Best in history. There is literally nothing there to hang a Democrat blue wave upon - except cheating.

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

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #102 on: December 07, 2020, 09:25:55 PM »
Look, Biden is a lost cause. Dementia, inability to speak coherently, and a history of plagiarism and lying. He was hidden away to protect his image. The MSM protected him, shrouding him in bubble-wrap. Their toughest questions were about the flavor of ice cream he purchased. Nothing about money laundering and his son's child porn on his lap top. He never had enthusiasm, and the Democrat image-makers pretended the country was just against Trump, regardless of Biden. Doesn't work. Trump won in every category. His success in his governance is undeniable. Best in history. There is literally nothing there to hang a Democrat blue wave upon - except cheating.

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

Except for the fact you ignore. Trump won in a landslide and the Democrats cheated. Thousands of affidavits you are ignoring. That is not me. That is you ignoring fact, and calling it ignorance or lies. If the Swamp coup can be undone, what will you do if Trump is sworn in for a second term? Will you join AntiFa and loot, pillage, and burn? Will you resign from bring cannon fodder for the Democrats - or continue on?

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #103 on: December 07, 2020, 09:41:48 PM »
Well, with such an argument, one wonders why you even need elections. The United States government should just ask wmLambert who'll be the winner in each election, then put that guy in the presidency. Since it's so clear as that that you don't need to bother with the whole voting and counting thing. /s

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you accept the bet?
« Last Edit: December 07, 2020, 09:44:17 PM by Aris Katsaris »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #104 on: December 07, 2020, 09:52:45 PM »
WITHOUT any votes from those states, Biden has 67,128,178 million votes, and Trump has 61,113,791 votes,

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

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

It's amazing what can be done when numbers gets thrown around just to throw numbers around.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2020, 09:55:00 PM by TheDeamon »

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #105 on: December 07, 2020, 10:10:02 PM »
Quote
With the disputed vote totals, as presently reported, but minus California and New York the vote tally becomes:
Biden 81,271,129 votes total - 11,109,764 (CA) - 5,244,006 (NY) = 64,917,359 votes
Trump 74,209,290 votes total - 6,005,961 (CA) - 3,251,230 (NY) = 64,952,099 votes (Trump win -- and still an improvement over his 2016 numbers)

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

What I was doing was removing all the "disputed" states where supposedly Democrats cheated -- and it showed that Biden still had more votes than any sitting president in history, the thing that not I but rather wmLambert claimed for Trump as supposed proof that Trump must have therefore won. It's by his logic that this proves that then it was Biden that must have won.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #106 on: December 07, 2020, 10:31:07 PM »
With the disputed vote totals, as presently reported, but minus California and New...removing all the "disputed" states where supposedly Democrats cheated -- and it showed that Biden still had more votes than any sitting president in history, the thing that not I but rather wmLambert claimed for Trump as supposed proof that Trump must have therefore won. It's by his logic that this proves that then it was Biden that must have won.

You still don't get it. Trump had enthusiasm and more minority percentage of votes than anyone expected. He was running ahead everywhere, including California if you can believe it. If the Dominion system took away so many Trump votes and gave them to Biden, then that is the crux of the problem. The demographics in Florida were solidly for Trump, but that is a GOP-run state where the vote was not rigged for Biden, and didn't use Dominion systems. What would have happened to Florida's numbers if Dominion gave Biden 26% more votes than he deserved, while taking them away from Trump? I give Sidney Powell great credit for her honesty and courage to do what is right. She said the Dominion/Smartmatic system added 35,000 votes down ballot to Democrat candidates - but Biden had no coattails and Pelosi lost every vote in the House. How can you wrap your mind around unbelievable results? I tend to believe her and not those the affidavits said were scamming.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #107 on: December 07, 2020, 11:10:16 PM »
I note that the Michigan judge who threw out the Sidney Powell lawsuit is a real Left-wing activist: https://bigleaguepolitics.com/federal-judge-who-dismissed-sidney-powells-michigan-lawsuit-is-far-left-anti-cop-pro-affirmative-action-obama-appointee/

Powell mentioned that the plan was to get to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible. In this regard, U.S. District Judge Linda Parker, did Powell a huge favor in not dragging it out.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #108 on: December 07, 2020, 11:41:22 PM »
I note you've not said whether you accept the bet or explained why not.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #109 on: December 08, 2020, 11:25:12 AM »
I heard on the radio some caller said something that I found interesting. It would be nice if we had some real investigations into voter fraud. He pointed out that we had Congressional hearings on juicing in baseball. We had 19 FBI agents go down to investigate a pull rope in a NASCAR garage. What do we have as far as investigations into voter fraud. It looks like just the bare minimum and actually not even that.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #110 on: December 08, 2020, 11:29:06 AM »
Trump did have an investigation into fraud.  I think the guy from Kansas headed it. They found nothing of any size happened. So it got shut down

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #111 on: December 08, 2020, 11:48:03 AM »
Quote
According to AP VoteCast, Trump won 8 percent of the Black vote, about a 2 percentage-point gain on his 2016 numbers (using the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, or CCES, a national survey of more than 50,000 confirmed voters, as a point of comparison).

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

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #112 on: December 08, 2020, 12:10:06 PM »
Quote
According to AP VoteCast, Trump won 8 percent of the Black vote, about a 2 percentage-point gain on his 2016 numbers (using the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, or CCES, a national survey of more than 50,000 confirmed voters, as a point of comparison).

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

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

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

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #113 on: December 08, 2020, 12:14:21 PM »
Quote
According to AP VoteCast, Trump won 8 percent of the Black vote, about a 2 percentage-point gain on his 2016 numbers (using the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, or CCES, a national survey of more than 50,000 confirmed voters, as a point of comparison).

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

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

The only was he could have done better is if he went from 1 percent to 2 percent, an unheard-of 100 percent increase! :)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #114 on: December 08, 2020, 12:29:31 PM »
Quote
According to AP VoteCast, Trump won 8 percent of the Black vote, about a 2 percentage-point gain on his 2016 numbers (using the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, or CCES, a national survey of more than 50,000 confirmed voters, as a point of comparison).

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

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

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

All 8% of them. Overwhelming support.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #115 on: December 08, 2020, 12:31:28 PM »
And he didn't launder money with any nations through his family.

He laundered money directly through his properties.

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

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

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

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


TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #116 on: December 08, 2020, 12:34:30 PM »
And I should listen to Leo Terrell, why? His credentials are pretty sparse. Oh, I know why, because he declared his worship for the Orange God. I imagine you, like me, never heard of this guy previously. Even wikipedia can barely eke out a paragraph on him. I'm not disparaging any of his achievements, but citing him as "proof black people like Trump" is just ridiculous.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #117 on: December 08, 2020, 01:20:50 PM »
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2020-presidential-election-joe-biden-donald-trump-patrick-basham-mark-levin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Granted every streak like that is going to break eventually, as the Valencia County example above indicates, they've been wrong before, they'll be wrong again. But the sheer scale of how many counties "broke their streak" on this cycle is staggering.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #118 on: December 08, 2020, 01:27:39 PM »
Is it proof of anything?  No.  But many of you are too good at statistics not to see issues with this. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #119 on: December 08, 2020, 01:46:02 PM »
https://xkcd.com/2383/

1916: No Democrat has won while losing West Virginia (Wilson did)
1948: Democrats can't win without Alabama (Truman did)
1960: Catholics can't win (until Kennedy)
1964: Every Republican who's taken Louisiana has won (until Goldwater)
1976: No one who lost New Mexico has won. (until Carter did)
1992: No Democrat has won without a majority of the Catholic vote (until Clinton did)
2000: No Republican has won without Vermont (until Bush did)
2008: No Democrat can win without Missouri (until Obama did)
2016: No one has become president without government or military experience (until Trump did)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #120 on: December 08, 2020, 01:57:34 PM »
Or we opened the floodgates to legitimate mail in ballots? Is it so surprising that when you make voting easier, more people vote? Not to mention that there was a full court press in entertainment to get out the vote, very different than in past years. Website links on how to get registered, day in and day out. Pickup truck caravans to support the Orange God. Plus a high profile supreme court appointment in the waning days. A sense among everybody voting that we were fighting an existential threat to our republic, on both sides.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #121 on: December 08, 2020, 06:43:41 PM »
So you don't like the CA stats?  What about Wisconsin?  Remember how literally on Oct. 28-30, there were hundreds of news articles touting how Biden was up 17 points on Trump?

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

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

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

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

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

I get it, 465k votes doesn't sound like a lot, but it's a huge number in Wisconsin.  Biden won by 20k votes (0.6%), where that 465k votes was around 14.3% of the total votes cast.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #122 on: December 08, 2020, 07:27:10 PM »
I get it, 465k votes doesn't sound like a lot, but it's a huge number in Wisconsin.  Biden won by 20k votes (0.6%), where that 465k votes was around 14.3% of the total votes cast.

More people voted, Serati.  That's the simplest solution.  What is the alternative theory?  I know you don't want to give any theories because any alternate theory proposed would need something to back it up.  And there isn't anything to back up a massive conspiracy of fraud.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #123 on: December 08, 2020, 09:09:54 PM »
Johnson had 4.5 million votes in 2016. Jorgenson had 1.8 million. Those voters went somewhere, because they didn't just decide they were suddenly not interested in politics. I think you'd be surprised how many might have gone to Biden, I'm one of them that voted for Gary and probably would have voted Jo if Texas were not predicted to be close.

As for Wisconsin, I don't have any difficulty believing that most people who registered also voted. A lot of people were far more likely to either vote absentee or voted early. I would bet that a significant number of people who wait for election day wind up not going, just because of mundane things like feeling ill, or having car troubles.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #124 on: December 08, 2020, 10:11:48 PM »
So you don't like the CA stats?  What about Wisconsin?  Remember how literally on Oct. 28-30, there were hundreds of news articles touting how Biden was up 17 points on Trump?
This whole argument is curve fitting, but it's not even clever curve fitting: the average of polls just before election day had Biden up by about 8%, not 17%.  So the contention is the vast Wisconsin conspiracy chose the poll that had Biden up by 17% and tried to fit the results to that?  Why not fit the results to another poll, like the one with Biden up by 14%, or 12%, or 5%?  Or to the average of polls?

Well, guess what? Over the 7-10 days before the election, you could find almost any percentage margin to choose from that would match the end results in Wisconsin within 1%.  It's just a silly argument.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #125 on: December 09, 2020, 01:23:51 AM »
Seriati

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

That was another interesting thing about this election and one may wonder if after seeing how Jill Stein probably cost Hillary the election in 2016 if no third parties were running this election or was it instead that our mainstream media that was determined to do anything and everything they possibly could to help Biden win just refused to report, at all, on any third party candidates this cycle. I've never seen an election like this without any coverage of third parties. I find it harder to believe that they suddenly ceased to exist than I do that the media sucked up all their oxygen and suffocated them all to death because reporting reality would cost Biden votes.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #126 on: December 09, 2020, 07:58:09 AM »
... or maybe, just maybe, those who would otherwise have voted third party as a protest felt that getting rid of Trump was far too important this time and decided not to throw away their votes on a symbolic gesture.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #127 on: December 09, 2020, 08:08:35 AM »
I follow the news pretty well and if I couldn't tell you who was running as third party candidates I seriously doubt most other Americans could either. It's very clear that the media was determined not to give Americans the information necessary to make any informed decisions about third party options. All information about them was self-censored by unstated understating. I can understand if Americans got savvy to the fact that there is a strong argument to be made that voting third party can end up giving you less of what you want compared to voting for the lesser of two evils. I don't disagree. But that doesn't explain why the media pretty much didn't cover any third party options this time around, at all. That's a completely separate issue. The mainstream media did it's level best to rig the election as much as possible in favor of Biden. They refused to report anything negative about him and exaggerated or outright lied about Trump to make him look like the epitome of pure evil.

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

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #128 on: December 09, 2020, 08:49:19 AM »
Just as a test, without looking it up, who knows who was running as third party candidates? No need to answer really. It can be on the honor system. But everyone can decide for themselves whether their experience makes my point or not.

I failed. I couldn't name the candidates, a green, libertarian, and constitution party were on the ticket in my state this year. 2 out of 3 of those are more likely to catabolize Trump. But the third party candidates have been getting less attention every cycle since 2000 when Nadar was a spoiler for Gore. And Trump is polarizing enough that I am actually surprised that third parties got any votes this cycle.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #129 on: December 09, 2020, 09:15:00 AM »
There was barely any coverage of Biden - it's not surprising nobody paid attention to third parties.  Trump is most successful in his ability to suck all the oxygen out of the media.  And let's face it - it's not like 3rd parties were covered much in previous election cycles, except maybe for the coverage associated with the lack of coverage associated to being 3rd parties.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #130 on: December 09, 2020, 10:16:31 AM »
...More people voted, Serati.  That's the simplest solution.  What is the alternative theory?  I know you don't want to give any theories because any alternate theory proposed would need something to back it up.  And there isn't anything to back up a massive conspiracy of fraud.

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

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

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #131 on: December 09, 2020, 10:24:58 AM »
But that doesn't explain why the media pretty much didn't cover any third party options this time around, at all. That's a completely separate issue. The mainstream media did it's level best to rig the election as much as possible in favor of Biden. They refused to report anything negative about him and exaggerated or outright lied about Trump to make him look like the epitome of pure evil.

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

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

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

 I mean, honestly, how many hours of coverage did CNN and MSNBC carry for third party candidates in 2020?  Can anybody here tell me?  Obviously someone here must know because I've been told that they were in the bag for Biden. 

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #132 on: December 09, 2020, 10:29:25 AM »
There was a conspiracy, but it wasn't in challenging voter fraud. The thousands of whistle-blowers and legal evidence via affidavits prove chicanery of an unprecedented order. Do you really claim ignorance of all the cheating for Biden? We now have proof that there was foreign interference in the election. That triggers Trumps Executive Order: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/exclusive-president-trmps-executive-order-regarding-foreign-intervention-us-elections-may-result-perilous-consequences-biden-family-others/

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

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

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

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


Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #133 on: December 09, 2020, 10:51:14 AM »
But that doesn't explain why the media pretty much didn't cover any third party options this time around, at all. That's a completely separate issue. The mainstream media did it's level best to rig the election as much as possible in favor of Biden.

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

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

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

All in all, rather dishonest of you. A game of "motte and bailey" where the same phrase "rig the election" is used to mean two different things.

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

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

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #134 on: December 09, 2020, 12:23:39 PM »
Gary Johnson was a two term Governor and a pretty well known name, plus there was a LOT of speculation that he would cost Trump the election, possibly win electoral votes and prevent a majority, or gain enough support to force his way in to the general election debates.

Jo Jorgenson's last political activity was Harry Browne's running mate 24 years ago. You don't need a conspiracy to know why she didn't get the TV interviews that Johnson did.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #135 on: December 09, 2020, 04:29:15 PM »
Jo Jorgenson's last political activity was Harry Browne's running mate 24 years ago. You don't need a conspiracy to know why she didn't get the TV interviews that Johnson did.

Well, she also tweeted the whole "we must be anti-racist" thing and re-iterated it a few other times. Considering all of the other associated "baggage" with that phrase, that it could send a number of libertarians running for the exits is hardly shocking. It isn't that the libertarians are pro-racism, they're just against getting the government more involved in "the war on racism" in America. That's only asking for an even bigger boondoggle than the "War on Drugs."

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #136 on: December 09, 2020, 04:34:14 PM »
Wow.  17 other states have signed on to the Texas suit as amici curiae, trying to overthrow the certifications of the states that supported Biden.

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

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #137 on: December 09, 2020, 04:58:55 PM »
At this point Seriati, you're just gish-galloping, right? Deliberately making long confusing arguments in 9 paragraphs that you could have done in 3 lines, but you're not making them in 3 lines, because everyone would see how ridiculous they'd look.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
I no longer believe you believe anything you say.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that's before you even consider all the apparently legal election manipulation that occurred before we got around to voting.  I mean according to the DNC it is of overwhelming vital importance to be sure that every vote is counted - which would seem to imply that they believe that everyone should have a say - yet they overwhelming all support suppressing information that should have been provided to those same votes.  Apparently informed voters are not desirable.  What kind of people what to ensure that "every vote" counts but also that only uniformed people are voting?
« Last Edit: December 09, 2020, 05:01:30 PM by Seriati »

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #138 on: December 09, 2020, 05:09:34 PM »
Wow.  17 other states have signed on to the Texas suit as amici curiae, trying to overthrow the certifications of the states that supported Biden.

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

I have a bad feeling about this.

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

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

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

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

I hope I'm just overreacting.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #139 on: December 09, 2020, 05:29:18 PM »
I think the point is that though states can within reasonable limits decide how they run their own elections they can't just do anything they want however they want to do it and they must follow certain rules and procedures, especially their own rules and procedures within their own state. And if they want to change the rules they must follow their own processes to do so. We saw the Supreme Court rule against Trump because of exactly that, supposedly not following the proper procedures to do something even if he had the power to do it. By the same token, maybe states had the power to do some of the things they did but if they didn't go about it the right way, for instance with an amendment to their state constitution instead of simple legislative action. That would be a huge mistake.

We saw with DACA how much of a stickler for procedure Roberts pretends to be so we'll see what happens here. The states played very fast and very loose with the election this time around, pretty much just saying, "Because Covid." Did the states really make all the changes they made the right way they needed to be made? Were all of those changes legal? We'll see.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #140 on: December 09, 2020, 05:32:35 PM »
or that a Ukraine scandal flagged by a secret whistleblower that was drafted by DNC activist lawyers and never had actual evidence of tying to Trump was a valid basis for impeach, it seems very off for you to apparently find it troubling to your core that election fraud occurred.  I mean, you had one whistleblower in Ukraine that didn't report on anything actually illegal, and here there seem to be  hundreds (if not thousands) of whistleblower accounts about improprieties in this election, and you and the media are doing everything in your power to ignore them.

WHAT THE ACTUAL *censored*?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems that he wanted the voters uninformed too.

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

I don't see you complaining about those.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #141 on: December 09, 2020, 05:34:49 PM »
Wow.  17 other states have signed on to the Texas suit as amici curiae, trying to overthrow the certifications of the states that supported Biden.

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

I have a bad feeling about this.

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

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

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

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

I hope I'm just overreacting.

Trump hinted that he would comment on his final opinion on Barr until sometime in the near future.  It was odd and to me suggested he was working towards something.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #142 on: December 09, 2020, 05:35:57 PM »
I'm pretty sure the added states are just posturing.

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

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #143 on: December 09, 2020, 05:39:07 PM »
Wayward, whether any other state signed on as amicus gives them no benefit, and doesn't exactly do anything to sway the court - it's not as if they are promoting any new, serious points of argument.  There's no downside to hopping on, and no (legally speaking) upside.  It's purely political.

And Cherry, a lot of what the complaint hinges on are things that Texas and the amici did themselves:
  • Kansas and Mississippi both counted mail-in ballots that arrived late.
  • Texas - having argued that only the legislature, and not executive officials - should be able to alter voting regs - but the governor of Texas did exactly that by, among other things,  extending the early voting period.
  • And of course there's the completely ambiguous "likely to increase the risks of fraud" wording - this could be argued about any change in electoral processes, and if one's wild imagination can be used to sway the court, you would be in even bigger trouble than you already are.
So they want the court to void the will of millions of voters in other states, because of things that applicants did themselves during the same election cycle.  It's just a ridiculous request.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #144 on: December 09, 2020, 05:44:45 PM »
I'm pretty sure the added states are just posturing.

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

I agree. 60+% of Republicans believe the election was stolen. So deep red states representatives want to look like they’re doing something. But I think the SC returns with a similar answer the penn SC did. You want to challenge the rules of an election you have to do so before the votes are cast.

kidv

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #145 on: December 09, 2020, 05:46:06 PM »
Well, that just makes  . . . me . . . so. . . . . . proud to discover I reside in one of those states.  Because of course I do.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #146 on: December 09, 2020, 05:54:34 PM »
Each state may have different procedures for changing it's voting laws. One state may require a constitutional amendment. Another may let the legislature do it. For all I know one may let the governor do it. I admit I don't know. Again, the point is that each state must at least follow it's own laws. So though I don't know the details and this is just off the cuff, just because one state did something and another state did the same thing doesn't necessarily mean they both did it legally. That's just an example though of what one aspect of the lawsuit might be. That's actually somewhat separate from the fraud angle.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #147 on: December 09, 2020, 06:02:33 PM »
I'm sure it's very coincidental that the 4 states that Trump has accused *fraud* in are also the ones targetted by the Texas suit, though it doesn't allege fraud, only that the governors & the state supreme court oughtn't change the election rules the legislators made.

How many more states will have to have their results invalidated, if this reasoning is applied equally to all 50 states? I think Texas itself will have to, but how many more?

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #148 on: December 09, 2020, 06:09:24 PM »
Quote
We saw with DACA how much of a stickler for procedure Roberts pretends to be so we'll see what happens here. The states played very fast and very loose with the election this time around, pretty much just saying, "Because Covid." Did the states really make all the changes they made the right way they needed to be made? Were all of those changes legal? We'll see.

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

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

I'm just have a bad feeling that they are hopping on for the purely political reason of being on the winning side when the SCOTUS rules for this suit.  As if they have some inside knowledge of the outcome beforehand.   :(

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #149 on: December 09, 2020, 07:18:21 PM »
I'm just have a bad feeling that they are hopping on for the purely political reason of being on the winning side when the SCOTUS rules for this suit.  As if they have some inside knowledge of the outcome beforehand.   :(

They don't have any benefit in either being on the 'winning' or the 'losing' side. The Republicans just want to tell their Trumpist voters that they did their best to fight the 'fraud', so not participating in this would have looked bad for them, and participating in it looks good, even if SCOTUS also turns it down in a single sentence.