Author Topic: What to do with actual election fraud?  (Read 8016 times)

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #200 on: January 04, 2021, 10:41:31 AM »
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-election-defense-secretaries-public-letter/index.html

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

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

Deep Stayt Military Industrial Complex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

« Last Edit: January 04, 2021, 10:45:43 AM by Grant »

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #201 on: January 04, 2021, 10:50:41 AM »
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/02/ted-cruz-electoral-college-challenge-453430

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

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

Well, there are your TrU PaTriOtS.


LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #202 on: January 04, 2021, 10:53:28 AM »
Interesting the claimed legal defense is that these were 'settlement talks'.

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

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

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/michael-avenatti-guilty-all-counts-nike-extortion-case-n1137106

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #203 on: January 04, 2021, 11:18:27 AM »
https://urbanmilwaukee.com/pressrelease/statement-by-from-former-house-speaker-paul-ryan/

Paul Ryan, Former RINO Speaker of the House:

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

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

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


BuhT WhUt AbOuT aLL ThOsE DeD pEoPLe voTInG?

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #204 on: January 04, 2021, 01:10:07 PM »
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/01/the-folly-of-the-cruz-eleven/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barbara Boxer shouldn’t be a conservative role model.


Meanwhile, in Georgia, the heroic and noble witcher L Lin Wood, senses the disturbance in the force caused by Buckley's summoning and mounts his stallion to head north.   

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #205 on: January 04, 2021, 02:26:12 PM »
He's trying to make an argument straight to Raffensperger that has been shot down in court after court after court. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #206 on: January 04, 2021, 02:32:28 PM »
Serati

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

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

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

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #207 on: January 04, 2021, 03:08:51 PM »
And the time to challenge those voting regulations is BEFORE the election, when the rules were being made. You don't get to play a game of monopoly to its completion and then, after you lose, bicker about whether there should have been money on Free Parking. Not to mention that they weren't even seeking a do-over election under old rules, they just wanted to toss the votes that were made in good faith by millions.

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

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

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

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

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #208 on: January 04, 2021, 03:20:06 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh YEAH! 

Sure, whatever. 

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

Sure. 

Quote
Many were rejected on standing or other legal doctrines.

What?  ::snort:: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #209 on: January 04, 2021, 03:29:41 PM »
Or Trump lost.

Which seems more likely?

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #210 on: January 04, 2021, 03:40:01 PM »

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

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

Yeah.  If I believed yahoo lawyers like L Lin Wood over my own Justice Department, I'd think they were after me too. 

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #211 on: January 04, 2021, 03:50:05 PM »
I think the second statement got it correct.  He really does believe it and he has all along.  He's not alone in that.  Can you blame him for not trusting the process, literally every bit of the administrative state has been working to undermine him his entire Presidency.  This looks - from his perspective - as one more deep state effort to make sure the "right" guy wins.

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

Your continuing excuses for the monster that he has been revealed to be earn you my utter contempt.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2021, 03:54:32 PM by Aris Katsaris »

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #212 on: January 04, 2021, 04:10:47 PM »
You're all being too hard on the guy. He literally told us if we'd just shut up and ignore the law, give him the 12k needed and just shut up about it, he would be fine. Next state on is another battle but the fact we won't give him his home battleground is pretty clear we're biased against him. We all need a lawsuit to shut us up.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #213 on: January 04, 2021, 04:14:01 PM »
All due respect but when Grant is the one to step aside and say, "Oh *censored* this looks pretty bad for everyone with a working nose," then everyone needs to stop and take a look. Gl

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #214 on: January 04, 2021, 04:15:45 PM »
If you really believe something is true you can't be held accountable and if you can't prove something didn't happen it is proof that something did happen.
That's just common sense which over 1/3 of the population accepts, which is even more proof their was fraud.
What's not to get?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #215 on: January 04, 2021, 04:30:22 PM »
Trump was repeating, ad nauseam before the election, that if he lost, it would be because of fraud.  He lost.  The only rational explanation was that there was fraud.  This is all the evidence he needs.

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

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #216 on: January 04, 2021, 05:18:26 PM »
Trump was repeating, ad nauseam before the election, that if he lost, it would be because of fraud.  He lost.  The only rational explanation was that there was fraud.  This is all the evidence he needs.

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

They cannot see their shadow and so create what they fear


Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #217 on: January 04, 2021, 05:25:51 PM »
Meanwhile, deep in the American Heartland of West Palm Beach, Florida, on the 18th green of the PGA National Resort and Spa Estate Course, a man falls to his knees in the pouring rain.  Thunder crashes and lightening flashes as he raises his eyes up to entreat the Orange Messiah.  "What of your people?  The 1/3 who believe?" he entreats. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #218 on: January 04, 2021, 05:27:54 PM »
Serati

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beats me, not sure I care.  But having the truth is NOT enough, you have to be able to prove it as well, and Dominion is the one that will have control of the evidence (if any exists).

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #219 on: January 04, 2021, 05:37:31 PM »
And the time to challenge those voting regulations is BEFORE the election, when the rules were being made. You don't get to play a game of monopoly to its completion and then, after you lose, bicker about whether there should have been money on Free Parking. Not to mention that they weren't even seeking a do-over election under old rules, they just wanted to toss the votes that were made in good faith by millions.

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

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

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

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

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

Hey, if you're saying the law in PA should be enforced as passed by those Republicans (and Democrats) and signed by the Democrat Governor, happy to have that happen.  Of course, you just endorsed the Trump admin lawsuit.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #220 on: January 04, 2021, 05:51:49 PM »
Quote
The justices contended that if the plaintiffs had constitutional concerns over the mail-in voting law, their suit would have been filed earlier and not after millions of mail-in ballots were cast in the 2020 primary and general election. The justices further noted that the plaintiffs waited until after the votes had been tallied and their preferred presidential candidate lost the state.

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

You can find all kinds of lawsuits out there that applied to elections before they happened, including ones involving who gets to be on a ballot. And, in fact there was a lawsuit filed in PA over drop boxes in October.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #221 on: January 04, 2021, 06:14:54 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure. 

Thanks for admitting your error.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What I don't know is whether Biden might have still won if the election had been conducted legally.  It's that doubt that's really holding every body up. 

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #222 on: January 04, 2021, 06:23:52 PM »
Quote
The justices contended that if the plaintiffs had constitutional concerns over the mail-in voting law, their suit would have been filed earlier and not after millions of mail-in ballots were cast in the 2020 primary and general election. The justices further noted that the plaintiffs waited until after the votes had been tallied and their preferred presidential candidate lost the state.

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

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

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

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

Quote
You can find all kinds of lawsuits out there that applied to elections before they happened, including ones involving who gets to be on a ballot. And, in fact there was a lawsuit filed in PA over drop boxes in October.

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

Not to mention, you noticed the second item that he sued over?  He was trying to get the rule that requires election watchers to be registered in the district repealed.  Remember how nearly a quarter of the Districts in Philly don't have enough Republicans to even have watchers.  Hmmm...

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #223 on: January 04, 2021, 06:30:48 PM »
Serati

Powell says she has thousands of documents proving the fraud. That she has proof. She says she can prove it. Why has she shut up now?  Maybe she was lying the whole time?

kidv

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #224 on: January 04, 2021, 06:47:45 PM »
https://i.redd.it/cpyz2u6mhd961.jpg

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

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

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/kqgqkm/georgias_secretary_of_state_has_a_fact_check/

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #225 on: January 04, 2021, 06:54:54 PM »
In case anyone needed to to have it spelled out

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

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

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

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

The problem with Republicanism in a nutshell.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #226 on: January 04, 2021, 07:22:28 PM »
Wayward,

Please call it Trumpism.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #227 on: January 04, 2021, 07:44:05 PM »
You guys are still debating Seriati as if he's a good faith debater, rather than a malicious propagandist quite consciously serving a lie.

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

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

After a hundred Trumpist lies, disproven one after another after another, all invisible to him, the disgusting worm still has the audacity to accuse US of not caring about the truth. F-U-C-K HIM. Stop debating the disgusting fascist. He's consciously trying to serve the overthrow of American democracy which Trump is attempting, just because he likes his poliics and he doesn't care if he should overthrow democracy to do so. Every pretense otherwise on his part is itself a lie.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #228 on: January 04, 2021, 07:47:03 PM »
You guys are still debating Seriati as if he's a good faith debater,

No

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #229 on: January 04, 2021, 10:48:45 PM »
So I had not read the transcript previously, and now that I have, I'll just flat out say that anyone that's cited as "evidence" Trump asked them to find votes for Trump or do anything illegal is a bald faced liar.

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

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

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

Citing to a write up that was written by the left to distract from the left's own motives is hardly convincing.  It's an old trick and well drawn from too often.  I mean, you go back and look at the amici brief and Judge Sullivan's opinion on Flynn, where they cited to an - at the time - unpublished Law Review article that just happens to be the only thing ever written supporting their novel claim that the case needn't be dismissed.   I  will say the left knows exactly how propaganda works, its exactly the process they're using here.  Repeatedly assert that the fraud is a conspiracy, even if they've never shown it and just said "trust us" we looked at the stuff and there is no fraud.  Really, what did they look at?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #230 on: January 04, 2021, 11:22:55 PM »
You guys are still debating Seriati as if he's a good faith debater, rather than a malicious propagandist quite consciously serving a lie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But even more I have a problem with the number of people who don't care about falsifying or proving an election.  A real vetting is going to reveal one of 3 things:  1. there was fraud that changed the result, 2. there wasn't fraud that changed the result (there could still be fraud), or 3. our current systems don't leave us any way all to determine if there was fraud or its extent.  Those results are absolutely critical to our actual Democracy.  We have to be able to trust that elections are fair, and if the answer is 1 or 3 we can't ever do that again (and we all know the answer is 3).

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #231 on: January 05, 2021, 04:36:16 AM »
Quote
Still can't address my points so you have to go with the ad hominem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's another cute sign of deliberate obfuscation and dishonesty, and how Seriati jumps from point to point -- the way he sometimes speaks about "illegal votes" as votes fraudulently cast (or fraudulently counted) by people desiring to commit election fraud, and the other half of the time he speaks about illegal votes, as votes that were legitimately cast by people legitimately voting, but eh perhaps two months after the election Seriati selectively decided that those states whose outcome he doesn't like (and ONLY those) perhaps (or perhaps not) did something unconstitutional in how they changed their "election rules", while of course ignoring all those states like Texas who perhaps also did the same. As long as they supported Trump, it's all good.

So what is "illegal voting" here -- a vote that doesn't actually reflect the intended will of the legitimate electorate, i.e. election fraud -- or a vote that Seriati wants to throw out on a supposed technicality even though it actually does reflect the indended will of the voter at the time, and the voter did nothing wrong, but the election officials did?

Well, it will mean whatever Seriati wants it to mean at whatever point in time. It will mean it selectively on the states that Seriati wants to throw out for whatever reason. Not Texas itself or any other state that voted for Trump, oh no, that voted 'correctly' regardless of whatever unconstitutional crap they did.

Quote
So why don't you prove the lie after lie.  I'm not accepting third party work on this.  Go read this transcript and prove out the "lie" after "lie" told by Trump, showing the knowing falsehoods that he's passing on.

Here's the weasel word "knowing" -- as without a lie detector beyond current technology, it's impossible to "prove" whether Trump deliberately speaks ANY lie or not.

In the meantime, Trump still claimed that "Now it turns out that Brad R's brother works for China". (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1344142388063821825)
This is a falsehood, as easily proven by the fact that Brad Raffensperger doesn't have a brother.
Trump still hasn't taken down the tweet or retracted or apologized for the accusation.

But see, it's possible that Trump still hasn't been informed that Brad R doesn't have a brother.
So we can't "prove" that's a lie. We can't "prove" that it's a continuing lie as long as Trump keeps the tweet up without correcting it or apologizing for it.

Nobody can prove Trump a liar because -insert postmodernist crap about the impossibility of proving anything-. So anyone who calls Trump a liar must be a liar themselves. Because in the case of Trump's accusers we CAN prove it, what you didn't think that the same logic should be applied in both cases, did you? /s

« Last Edit: January 05, 2021, 04:47:32 AM by Aris Katsaris »

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #232 on: January 05, 2021, 09:31:13 AM »
Any one who listens to the GA SOS phone call and does not see Trump trying to extort votes is lacking in comprehension. Almost every legal scholar sees this as a violation of state and federal law. Trump will probably pardon himself for the Federal crime, but my guess is he will be prosecuted on a state level.

With all that is going on in the world, Trump is focused on one thing.  Not finding out who did the cyber attack.  Not working on a plan for the vaccine. But on trying to extort a few thousand votes so he can win one state.


rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #233 on: January 05, 2021, 10:50:33 AM »
Any one who listens to the GA SOS phone call and does not see Trump trying to extort votes is lacking in comprehension. Almost every legal scholar sees this as a violation of state and federal law. Trump will probably pardon himself for the Federal crime, but my guess is he will be prosecuted on a state level.

With all that is going on in the world, Trump is focused on one thing.  Not finding out who did the cyber attack.  Not working on a plan for the vaccine. But on trying to extort a few thousand votes so he can win one state.

Trump showed he real politician. In the hour long phone call he speaks clearly and carefully (unlike his usual ramblings showing once again he knows exactly what he's doing when he communicates as he does)

Trump dances on the line of extortion but I suspect Seriati is correct on this one.

Trump knew exactly what he was doing and we all know what Trump was trying to do, but making the case it was illegal is another thing. Once again he will not be held accountable for the seeds he is sowing. The opposite actually, his base will see the call as proof of fraud. It would not surprise me if it was Trump that released the recording.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #234 on: January 05, 2021, 10:56:11 AM »
The SOS of GA released the tape.  He had been burnt before with the Lindsay Grahm phone call, and since GA is a single party recording state, they recorded the phone call.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #235 on: January 05, 2021, 11:24:21 AM »
Trump had first accused Brad Raffensperger on a tweet:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1345731043861659650
"I spoke to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger yesterday about Fulton County and voter fraud in Georgia. He was unwilling, or unable, to answer questions such as the “ballots under table” scam, ballot destruction, out of state “voters”, dead voters, and more. He has no clue!"

The phone conversation was released so that people can determine by themselves whether Trump's accusation was true or a lie.

As far as I can tell from the transcript the accusation was all a lie, and they were able to answer all his questions, it's just that he doesn't accept any answer that he doesn't like. For example in regards to "ballot destruction", there's this part:

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-georgia-phone-call-transcript-brad-raffensperger-recording
----
President Trump: (30:39)
What about the ballots, the shredding of the ballots, have they been shredding ballots?

Ryan Germany: (30:44)
The only investigation that we have into that, they have not been shredding any ballots. There was an issue in Cobb County where they were doing normal office shredding, getting rid of old stuff, and we investigated that. But this stuff from past elections.

President Trump: (31:00)
Well, I don’t know about that [crosstalk 00:31:02]. It doesn’t pass the smell test though, because we hear they’re shredding thousands and thousands of ballots. And now what they’re saying, “Oh, we’re just cleaning up the office.” I don’t think that-

Brad Raffensperger: (31:16)
Mr. President, the problem that you have with social media, people can say anything.

President Trump: (31:21)
Oh this isn’t social media. This is Trump media. It’s not social media. It’s really not, it’s not social media. I don’t care about social media. I couldn’t care less. Social media is Big Tech. Big Tech is on your side. I don’t even know why you have a side because you should want to have an accurate election. And you’re a Republican.

----

So Trump hears a supposed rumor from the "Trump media" (whatever that is), then if the officials say that it's not true, they've looked into it and it's just not true, he rejects their answers, accuses them in person of being on the 'other side', and accuses them in public of being unable or unwilling to answer it.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #236 on: January 05, 2021, 11:58:43 AM »
Trump is either delusional or lying Psychopath . I suspect the latter, a psychopath that has drunk his own cool aid.

For reasons I don't understand history shows that many people are attracted to such people. 

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #237 on: January 05, 2021, 12:47:49 PM »
Trump is either delusional or lying Psychopath . I suspect the latter, a psychopath that has drunk his own cool aid.

My main theory is that he's crazy, he really believes he couldn't have lost because rally size, and that he's surrounded now by sycophants who feed his bs.  I said that earlier. 

That being said, there is an argument to be made that he just doesn't care about anything but winning, and that this is just another one of his strategies.  He doesn't care about truth.  He just wants to win.  He doesn't care about justice or fairness or decorum or character.  He just wants to win.  Whining is just one of his strategies.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/08/11/politics/donald-trump-refutes-third-party-run-report/index.html

Quote
For reasons I don't understand history shows that many people are attracted to such people.

I think he had a great deal of attraction to some conservatives because he "was a winner".  So many conservatives just felt crushed by Obama being McCain and Romney.  I don't really understand why.  But they felt desperate and were attracted to something new and different and they were desperate for someone to protect them from Progressivism and Liberalism etc, and when he won he was their hero.  This is one of my theories. 

This theory suggests that now that he's lost, he's going to lose some of that support.  And lo and behold, he's losing approval from conservatives and republicans on the gallup presidential approval polls.  They're probably even worse now than they were a few weeks ago.  But he's near all time lows with Republicans.  He'll probably continue to lose support.  I believe that the 12 Apostles of Trump are simply trying to grab those Trump voters.  Eventually, after showing that they "fought" in their stupid show in Congress, they will turn on Trump or try and get his blessing to be the "next Trump". 

But he still has that hard block of voters he started with in July/August of 2015.  These are the guys who just hate the elites.  I said so back in January of 2017 and got a bunch of pushback.  But that's his core constituency.  People who hate "elites".  Whether it's MSM or establishment Republicans or doctors or liberal professors or whatever. 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #238 on: January 05, 2021, 12:59:54 PM »
That being said, there is an argument to be made that he just doesn't care about anything but winning, and that this is just another one of his strategies.  He doesn't care about truth.  He just wants to win.  He doesn't care about justice or fairness or decorum or character.  He just wants to win.  Whining is just one of his strategies.

If that is to be the charge against him then many, MANY in politics are guilty as charged. Most of them, really. It's all about power and getting it whatever way you can. Placating the people is a means to an end, not the end. So it's sort of like the Roman Republic in that sense for many of these people. I think the main difference between Trump and the others is his manner and tone in doing what they do; he uses weird rhetoric, repetition, and 'whining' (as you put it) to achieve the end, but it's the same end others have. They just do it in more politic and aesthetically pleasing ways and try to make it look like something other than what it is. It has been my theory more or less since the start that what many people don't like about him is mainly aesthetic: how he talks, the language he uses, being direct and aggressive rather than indirect and passive-aggressive, even how he looks. From the start of the GOP 2016 primaries he had so many detractors, and back then it wasn't about the current narratives of "fascist" and "would-be-dictator" and "criminal", it was about his character and his aspect. But mostly his aspect, since 'character' doesn't really matter to most voters, as has now been proved. He had a bad look for a smooth politician, plain and simple, and he aggravated people. They just didn't like him, and any reasons to justify that (of which there are perhaps many to draw from) come a posteriori. It is easy to come up with such reasons, but the desire to employ them preceded the reasoning behind them.

I always thought Trump was the dark underbelly of the current political system. I still think that anything people dislike about him should be answered with a long look in a mirror. He may be a funhouse mirror of the reality, but it's merely an exaggeration, not an outright anomaly. Don't like political spin and spewing out nonsense? Look in a mirror. Don't like underhanded tactics and cheating? Look in a mirror. Don't like disrespect for opponents? Look in a mirror. He just does it in a grosser and less veiled way.

That's my 2c on whether Trump is crazy. I think he is merely the spokesperson of the crazies, even those on the other side. If the political insanity in America didn't exist then neither would his success.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #239 on: January 05, 2021, 01:23:19 PM »
Quote
But he still has that hard block of voters he started with in July/August of 2015.  These are the guys who just hate the elites.

Begs the question of what and who are the elites.
It seems today the only place the elite are allowed is in sport. Any where else we do not trust them unless of course they fit our image, but then who is the elitist?
It is ourselves we hate?

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #240 on: January 05, 2021, 01:25:09 PM »

If that is to be the charge against him then many, MANY in politics are guilty as charged. Most of them, really.

There have certainly been some whiners in American politics.  But never to this extent.  Gore didn't whine this bad.  Neither did Clinton.  Nor did every other single candidate for the Presidency.  I can't think of a single American politician who has whined as much as Trump.  Who has refused to admit defeat to this level of lacking grace.  Maybe Stacy Abrams?  Has she ever conceded?  I don't know to what level she whined to Kempf about being both the Sec of State and the one who beat her.  I'm welcome for a list of names if you have them Fenring.  But let's face it.  Trump is the Whinius Optimus Maximus Mundus.  He's the best and greatest. 

Quote
he uses weird rhetoric, repetition, and 'whining'

Whining is actually the word he used, though he was responding to a quote made by Rich Lowery, that deep state RINO editor-in-chief of National Review.  The one with the evil lair under Washington Heights who summoned Bill Buckley's wraith. 

Quote
From the start of the GOP 2016 primaries he had so many detractors, and back then it wasn't about the current narratives of "fascist" and "would-be-dictator" and "criminal", it was about his character and his aspect. But mostly his aspect, since 'character' doesn't really matter to most voters, as has now been proved. He had a bad look for a smooth politician, plain and simple, and he aggravated people. They just didn't like him, and any reasons to justify that (of which there are perhaps many to draw from) come a posteriori. It is easy to come up with such reasons, but the desire to employ them preceded the reasoning behind them.

Character is destiny.  The people who didn't care about character got what they deserved.  I defend my proclivity to dislike individuals who lie, cheat, are without humility, who whine, who lack grace.  You're right.  I never did like him.  I feel justified for not doing so. 

Quote
I still think that anything people dislike about him should be answered with a long look in a mirror.

I'm unsure if you are speaking about me personally or about my political leanings.  I don't lie, and the people around me wouldn't put up with me if I did.  I'd end up fired and divorced.  I don't have the benefit of having a slumlord father granting me millions of dollars in New York real estate. 

As to my political animals, I'm sure that some of you can contest the statements, but I don't believe that Romney or McCain were liars either.  I believe there is plenty of wiggle room in politics.  But pure lies regarding statements of material fact are not part of this wiggle room.  I believe that Romney and McCain were men of character, and I would stress that at the very least, they had more character than the Pussy Grabber in Chief. 

Quote
Don't like political spin and spewing out nonsense? Look in a mirror. Don't like underhanded tactics and cheating? Look in a mirror. Don't like disrespect for opponents? Look in a mirror. He just does it in a grosser and less veiled way.

I have very low expectations from politicians.  And I have been disappointed, but this is mainly due to Trump sycophancy.  But saying they're all the same is wrong.  They're not and you know it.  You even admit that he does it in a grosser and less veiled way.  And I personally can look in the mirror and say that I am not guilty of any of those things.  I will admit that I have character faults and probably should never be allowed to hold public office.  I would probably end up being worse than Trump.  But I don't need to be an angel to vote.  I just need to know the difference between a man or woman of character and virtue, and a piece of *censored*. 

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #241 on: January 05, 2021, 01:35:21 PM »
Begs the question of what and who are the elites.
It seems today the only place the elite are allowed is in sport. Any where else we do not trust them unless of course they fit our image, but then who is the elitist?
It is ourselves we hate?

To start with, the elites are the people that are against Trump.  That's the most important part.  Trump isn't an elite, despite qualifying several times over.  He is the Orange Messiah.  A man of the people.

1.  The elites have power.  Politicians.  Media personalities.  Sports figures.  Celebrities.  Deep State civil servants.  Etc.

2.  The elites have money.  Politicians.  Media personalities.  Sports figures.  Celebrities.  Bankers.  Doctors.  Lawyers.  CEOs.  Corporations.  Wall Street.

3.  The elites have education.  The more education the more elite. They went to Ivy League Schools.  They have college degrees.  Lawyers.  Doctors.  Bankers. CEOs.  College professors.  PhDs. 

4.  The elites have failed you.  They are responsible for the failures.  Everything that has gone wrong is the fault of the elites.  They have conspired to deprive you of what you are owed. 


"The Elites" are the enemy.  The same way the Jews were the enemy invented by Nazi Germany.  Except that Trumpists don't want to kill all the elites.  They actually want to be elites. 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #242 on: January 05, 2021, 01:43:08 PM »
Begs the question of what and who are the elites.

In the sense Seriati meant it I assume he means the same people who are a part of the deep state, which is a contentious and strange-sounding way for calling something that everyone knows exists, which is the upper classes. America doesn't understand about classes so naturally one has to resort to weird terms like "the elites". It means super-rich and influential people who make or break entire industries, and it means people who man powerful organizations through rich tons of money flows. It basically means the brokers of the movement of wealth; either the possessors or the cleaninghouses of vast amounts of capital. The spice must flow.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #243 on: January 05, 2021, 01:48:50 PM »
Quote
"The Elites" are the enemy.  The same way the Jews were the enemy invented by Nazi Germany.  Except that Trumpists don't want to kill all the elites.  They actually want to be elites.

I'd expand on that. I don't think they want to be elites, they want to be looked at as their equals without really changing who they are or how they live. Trump has power and money and a college degree, but he'd never be considered elite because he embraces the common person. He talks like them, acts like them, and essentially loves them.

The elites all agree that low flow shower heads make sense. The masses chafe against rules, especially when they feel they are being imposed on them arbitrarily.

In Russia, they were called the intelligentsia, and eventually the bolsheviks had enough of their *censored*.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #244 on: January 05, 2021, 01:49:14 PM »
I can't think of a single American politician who has whined as much as Trump.  Who has refused to admit defeat to this level of lacking grace.  Maybe Stacy Abrams?  Has she ever conceded?  I don't know to what level she whined to Kempf about being both the Sec of State and the one who beat her.  I'm welcome for a list of names if you have them Fenring.  But let's face it.  Trump is the Whinius Optimus Maximus Mundus.  He's the best and greatest. 

Grant, I'm not talking about whining as anything other than a tactic. I guess you could suppose his whining is not a tactic but is merely a character flaw he can't help but exercise, and that it has nothing to do with achieving a result. Personally I assume he thinks it will get him something, or at least maybe get him something. Use any trick you can, even if it's not pretty. People like that quickly learn what will get them something and what won't, and perhaps it's sad that certain things will work in life but that's what it is. I'm not saying that he's just a reflection of history's whiners, that's a misreading of what I wrote. I meant that he will use anything tactic he thinks will achieve success, and in his case apparently that includes whining. Hillary would never whine, but it's only because she had other tools she preferred to employ that suited her look and her tastes. I don't particular think hers better more virtuous tools, merely less ugly in their public sheen. Likewise with billionaires who employ vast amounts of funds to undermine the public trust; they are not 'whining their way to victory', but they *are* using their preferred tools to attain victory. The virtue of it in all these cases is irrelevant, that is not their intention. It is a purely practical case of do what works, whatever that is. You avoid immoral or unseemly things because they will harm your chances, not because they are wrong. That is the sort of person I mean. It's just that Trump's chosen methods are ugly to many people, not that he is uniquely prone to doing anything it takes to win. That is what 'look in the mirror' means. I means that being partisan involves, among other things, doing anything it takes to win, which indirectly endorses Trump's methods whatever side you're on.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #245 on: January 05, 2021, 01:53:46 PM »
Quote
"The Elites" are the enemy.  The same way the Jews were the enemy invented by Nazi Germany.  Except that Trumpists don't want to kill all the elites.  They actually want to be elites.

Trump has power and money and a college degree, but he'd never be considered elite because he embraces the common person. He talks like them, acts like them, and essentially loves them.

Satire?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #246 on: January 05, 2021, 02:18:51 PM »
Quote
"The Elites" are the enemy.  The same way the Jews were the enemy invented by Nazi Germany.  Except that Trumpists don't want to kill all the elites.  They actually want to be elites.

Trump has power and money and a college degree, but he'd never be considered elite because he embraces the common person. He talks like them, acts like them, and essentially loves them.

Satire?

Absolutely not. He adores the MAGA army because of their undying love for him. He's inarticulate like them, crude like them, and mistrustful of the government. He clearly shows some sort of adoration for people working in manufacturing, which most politicians pretend to do, but Trump pulls it off in a way that the political elites like John Kerry or John McCain could never do. Maybe you just object to my use of "common person" in which case you can substitute his base if you prefer.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #247 on: January 05, 2021, 02:32:31 PM »
The virtue of it in all these cases is irrelevant, that is not their intention. It is a purely practical case of do what works, whatever that is. You avoid immoral or unseemly things because they will harm your chances, not because they are wrong. That is the sort of person I mean. It's just that Trump's chosen methods are ugly to many people, not that he is uniquely prone to doing anything it takes to win. That is what 'look in the mirror' means. I means that being partisan involves, among other things, doing anything it takes to win, which indirectly endorses Trump's methods whatever side you're on.

This is everything that is wrong with the modern conception of politics.  Doing something because it brings you gain, victory, money, fame, whatever, and calling it good simply because it worked, is the very definition of immorality.  Read Cicero. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  War is not politics.  Politics is not war.  Whatever Clausewitz meant is not what some people want it to mean.  Doing anything it takes to win, or being partisan, is immoral.  You cannot trust someone who does anything it takes to win in politics.  They're not fighting for anything but themselves.  I've made this post at least twice already.  You cannot defeat your enemies in politics like you can in war.  War may be a continuation of politics, but it is a line you cross where you throw out the rules and are strictly utilitarian.  I understand the moral clarity and finality.  But once you cross that line, your enemy will keep raising the stakes until you're killing each other. 

Doing whatever it takes to win is something every kid in America understands is wrong.  I don't understand how some adults can no longer comprehend this. 

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #248 on: January 05, 2021, 02:37:28 PM »
He clearly shows some sort of adoration for people working in manufacturing, which most politicians pretend to do, but Trump pulls it off in a way that the political elites like John Kerry or John McCain could never do.

Oh yeah.  Real love there.  How's American manufacturing doing, by the way? 

I think maybe we have different definitions of love. 

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« Reply #249 on: January 05, 2021, 02:38:56 PM »
Satire?

Oh, no.  See rule zero.  Trump cannot be elite because he's a man of the people.  Oh yeah.  There is your proof.