What to do with actual election fraud?

[cherrypoptart]

Aris Katsaris

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

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

What is there to lose?

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

And sometimes the hail Mary pass actually works. Can't count on it and don't expect it; but if there is no other way then may as well go for it.

[Grant]

What is there to lose?

What is there to lose? 

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

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

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

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

That is what is happening to the Republican Party and too many Republican voters.  They are revealing themselves.   And people will not forget it.  As long as they live they will not forget this, in the same way some people never got over Vietnam or Watergate. 

[yossarian22c]

I agree this is more than leaving it all on the field, it’s heckling the opposing team during the trophy ceremony and getting close to starting a brawl after the game is over.

I can’t believe how many people are supportive of these actions that threaten the core of our democracy. No evidence of fraud has been shown. History will not be kind to Trump and his enablers. He will go down as the worst president in history and the greatest danger our democracy has faced since the civil war.

[Grant]

He will go down as the worst president in history and the greatest danger our democracy has faced since the civil war.

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

[cherrypoptart]

If Trump loses 9-0 then that helps solidify the legitimacy of Biden's victory. That should be a good thing. As for self-respect I think we can all agree that bird flew the coop a long time ago.

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

[cherrypoptart]

"This isn't the field.  This is a week after the Superbowl and you're still complaining that somebody cheated or the refs were crooked..."

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



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNEEzZXROTo

[DonaldD]

Is it fair to ask GOP politicians to put their lives, and their families' lives, at risk in order to resist the president's attacks on democracy?

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

<snip>

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

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

“If I would say to you, ‘I don’t want to do it,’” she said about signing the letter, “I’d get my house bombed tonight.”

[yossarian22c]

He will go down as the worst president in history and the greatest danger our democracy has faced since the civil war.

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

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

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

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

[Aris Katsaris]

If Trump loses 9-0 then that helps solidify the legitimacy of Biden's victory.

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

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

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

Indeed, if SCOTUS decides this is a valid case (even if it turns it down on its merits), why shouldn't Democrats try to find a way to invalidate every congressional election they lost? If the presidential elections can be overturned in this manner, surely the congressional election can likewise, and probably in LOTS of states.

[kidv]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163237/20201209155924009_2020-12-9%20Texas%20Scotus%20Amici%20Brief-%20FINAL.pdf

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

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

[Grant]

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

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

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

To me, to ignite a civil war, you need the ignition source and a hazardous atmosphere.  The ignition source is usually your political leaders, and your atmosphere is your electorate.  Trump is pretty out there, and he's pretty talented about getting the atmosphere more dangerous, but he's not a major spark.  He still hasn't started directly speaking of martial law or civil war.  When that happens, you can crank it up to an 8 or 9.  The atmosphere is the more dangerous part.  People are getting stressed and everybody just needs to take a Colorado vacation and try some 'Tegrity Christmas Special.  I hear it cures coronavirus.  Even then, support from state governments is extremely low.  There is a lot of things working right now and we should be grateful and happy and confident that the system is stable.  No Republican governor is going along with the madness. 

[yossarian22c]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163237/20201209155924009_2020-12-9%20Texas%20Scotus%20Amici%20Brief-%20FINAL.pdf

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

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

I think the court will reject the Texas case but maybe with more than a denied sentence. I think the reasoning will be the same as the Penn SC used to dismiss the Republican challenge to the mail in ballot law. If you want to litigate the announced rules of an election you must do so before the ballots are cast. You can't wait and see if you like or dislike the results then challenge the rules. So I think the SC maybe steps it up and writes two sentences to reject this case. But they may just say rejected because the case hasn't been before any judge/court. The SC usually doesn't like to be the first court hearing a case.

[yossarian22c]

If Trump loses 9-0 then that helps solidify the legitimacy of Biden's victory. That should be a good thing. As for self-respect I think we can all agree that bird flew the coop a long time ago.

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

So the SC is going to refuse to hear this case and it will do nothing in the minds of 50 million Republicans to legitimize Biden.

[DJQuag]

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?

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

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

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

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

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

The absolute worst type of place this could ever become is an echo chamber, and I start to get concerned when one of the minority is outright being called insane and another is being told that he's a lying liar who lies.

[DJQuag]

On a much less preachy note, lolol at the frigging conservative wing of American politics (Democracy! Freedom! *censored* yeah World Police!) getting so very worked up over

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

PSPS Grandaddy wasn't actually Black was just trying to pull the joke off.

[kidv]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163379/20201210144443769_Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20-%20Motion%20and%20Br.%20of%20Amici%20DC%20et%20al.pdf  For all you literate people out there, here's the amici brief from 22 other states opposing Texas.  This seems like a clear  sane summary of the position that Texas does not have any business interfering in other states' sovereignty, a pretty quick 14 pages.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163367/20201210142206254_Pennsylvania%20Opp%20to%20Bill%20of%20Complaint%20v.FINAL.pdf
 For reading meat eaters out there, this is Pennsylvania's formal response, giving an in depth response to the Texas claims.  I think the clearest-eyed point inside is the final analysis of the standard that Texas would need to meet to receive an injunction, and how Texas fails to represent that standard correctly or meet any of the elements of that standard.  Reading those four pages (37-40 of the pdf, 27-30 of the numbered brief) would probably be good for all citizens.

[msquared]

Notice how the lawsuits that have had time to prepare all seem to have glaring errors while those responding in just a day or two have correct grammar and spelling and references.  it is almost like real lawyers wrote them, not some dream team.

[DonaldD]

Wow... so many words, and so much effort, going into opposing a sham process that was initially kicked off for the sole purpose of signalling to the president of the USA that the Texas AG is requesting a federal pardon.

[DJQuag]

No. Come on. Just...no.

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


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

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

These people are absolutely shameless. I literally muttered to myself no, haha, they're just having a laugh.

[DJQuag]

If the constituents of these people are demanding they do this then we apparently have an issue, because what they're asking is to use interstate judicial law to literally overturn election results. Christ, the Confederates could only wish they had the balls to go for that argument when *they* didn't win the presidential election.

[kidv]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163437/20201210163842796_City%20of%20Detroit%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

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

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

I guess if you're really an information hound, you'd read Detroit's actual brief (pdf pp. 6-27), which seems to do a clear job of laying out the facts in the record, so that Detroit does not get misrepresented.  Again it's nice sometimes to see people who care about their job and the job of others working to make sure people who did a lot of work to try to make a difficult task come off well get credit for their work.  It's nice to see the descriptions of sane people (Republicans and Democrats) working together in advance to conduct an election together.

[DonaldD]

At least there are some high level Republicans who still have the courage of their convictions... on the Texas attempt to subvert the electoral will on Pennsylvanians, Michiganders and the other battleground states that supported Biden:

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

[msquared]

At least Ohio's AG did not join. We had 5 House members who were part of the 106.

[DonaldD]

It's now all about 2022 and fundraising: the GOP has spent so long letting Trump whip up the base with disinformation and riding his coattails, and now that so much of the GOP electorate has basically bought into the insanity, GOP politicians feel they simply cannot be seen to be rational on so many topics. Those 106, and the earlier 17 AGs - they know better.  They know there is no winning the Texas suit, and they don't even want to win it.  They just can't let go of the tiger's tail, and they can't be seen to be letting go, even..

[rightleft22]

I preferred the illusion when I believed that some leaders had the moral courage to sacrifice for the greater good even when doing so goes against their self or even party interest

[Seriati]

Is it proof of anything?  No.  But many of you are too good at statistics not to see issues with this. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Aris Katsaris]

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

That is utter nonsense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[DJQuag]

"How do you prove fraud in a secret ballot election?  And eliminate any use of ID or apparently any comparison of signatures of the alleged voter.

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

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

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

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

[TheDeamon]

At least there are some high level Republicans who still have the courage of their convictions... on the Texas attempt to subvert the electoral will on Pennsylvanians, Michiganders and the other battleground states that supported Biden:

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

Oh you should have seen the rest of his statement. His issue with the suit was that he viewed it as a threat to state's rights and sovereignty for Idaho. Not so much that he disagrees with the rest of the legal justifications for the suit.

[DonaldD]

Yes... That's what he meant by the "legally correct" decision.

[TheDeamon]

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

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

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

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

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

Already addressed this previously, not a "national emergency" but it certainly is a political circus.

[TheDeamon]

Yes... That's what he meant by the "legally correct" decision.

Others might interpret that differently. It's only "legally correct" insofar as he doesn't want to see a legal precedent set where California, Washington, Oregon, and Nevada can start suing Idaho for anything under the sun.

[Seriati]

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

That is utter nonsense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again it's not proof.   

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

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

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

Maybe you should spend a few hours educating yourself and then take a crack at "debunking my lies," cause 5 minutes and a bunch of unfounded assertions and soundbites isn't doing it.

[yossarian22c]

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

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

Again it's not proof.   

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

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

Do you suspect fraud in small rural districts? They went really heavily to Trump. Districts with 50,000 voters get a lot less scrutiny than the big metro areas. A lot easier to cheat in without as many people looking over your shoulder. All the local officials are Republicans. Do you understand every argument you have put forward works just as well to support Trump committing fraud somewhere?

[DonaldD]

Why would anyone bother to try to rig an election for Biden in Alabama? Who is going to commit a felony for no reason?

QFT

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

If anything, this is evidence that whoever is making the argument hasn't thought it through.

[Aris Katsaris]

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

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

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

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

But you've sold your soul to a villain and a conman, so who cares? You're not convincing anyone, you're just illustrating the moral depravity of Trumpists.

[msquared]

Massive voter fraud found in PA

The dead vote.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/officials-finally-found-case-dead-225210492.html

[Seriati]

Why would anyone bother to try to rig an election for Biden in Alabama?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you suspect fraud in small rural districts?

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

They went really heavily to Trump.

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

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

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

All the local officials are Republicans.

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

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

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

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

I'm disappointed in the reading comprehension on this thread and even more disappointed in the wilful blindness.  You don't have to believe this election was stolen to get educated on this topic.  It doesn't make you a bad Democrat to actually care about voter fraud.

[Seriati]

QFT

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

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

You've yet to prove otherwise by explaining how you would personally catch it.  Until you do, all you're doing is repeating talking points written for you by people who do know it occurs but want you to believe otherwise.

[DonaldD]

Yes, it is stupid to think that widespread, organized mail in registration fraud and voting fraud, or the hijacking of others' registrations, would go unnoticed.

But that isn't what I was agreeing with anyway.  Think harder.

[yossarian22c]

Why would anyone bother to try to rig an election for Biden in Alabama?

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

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

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

Do you realize that you think that it is too difficult and high risk for there to be fraud in rural/Republican areas but you simultaneously think that it is entirely low risk for someone to travel around a state bribing nursing home workers and trusting them to pull off undetectable voter fraud schemes? And why would Democrats be more likely to perpetuate this fraud than Republicans? Particularly in Alabama, small scale voter fraud operations are most effective in primaries. The only primaries that usually matter in Alabama are the Republican ones, so if anyone was going to take the time, effort, and risk to set up a voter fraud scheme it is much more likely to be the Republicans in Alabama.

[Seriati]

Go to nursing homes, spend a couple days talking to people who voted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voter fraud in Alabama is unlikely to influence many state wide elections (though it could have elected Doug Jones, not saying it did), but it can be decisive in any number of local elections.  Having an incentive to control the county prosecutor or even the people who fund the school board is a direct and very personal incentive that influences people to take these kinds of steps, that doesn't mean they don't also have national political preferences.

[yossarian22c]

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

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

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

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

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

*I don't like ballot harvesting. I prefer in person voting. I prefer at least a month of early voting. I prefer lots of polling places so you don't need wait longer to vote than to buy groceries.

[Seriati]

So, even if there is fraud your position is just, too bad, not changing the "results."

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

Not being able to find voters is itself evidence, and  voters that can't be located or are unwilling to participate are a group that I would expect would be a great risk for being voters whose votes have been cast on a long term fraudulent basis.

[DonaldD]

“Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is, the data you have is wrong.”

"I just want to find 11,780 votes"

As for the thread topic, and what can be done about this ongoing attempt to disenfranchise millions of voters... it all depends on the appetite to prosecute a former president.

[msquared]

And if he finds them what will he do about the other states that he lost?

We now have 3 parties.  Dem, Rep and Trumpist and the Trumpist are willing to commit treason to keep their guy in power.

[Grant]

Is this a state crime?  Could the State prosecute Trump for Election Fraud?

Maybe.

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

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

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

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

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


This is kinda worse than him simply being a criminal.  It's easier to deal with.  But what is he going to do next?   

[Aris Katsaris]

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

Possibly. But the really successful liars do develop the skill of making it sound as they believe the crap they're saying, it's not like movies where the director gives you tells that this person is lying so as to not confuse the audience. It can be hard to tell the difference between a truly delusional person or simply a good liar.

[Grant]

Possibly. But the really successful liars do develop the skill of making it sound as they believe the crap they're saying, it's not like movies where the director gives you tells that this person is lying so as to not confuse the audience. It can be hard to tell the difference between a truly delusional person or simply a good liar.

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


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

I'm not a lawyer.  I have no clue.  I might have a better opinion after reading some lawyers whose judgement I trust. 

[Aris Katsaris]

I don't know if what he did is convictable either, also not a lawyer.