Author Topic: Election Results  (Read 37113 times)

Mynnion

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #800 on: November 21, 2020, 10:14:56 AM »
I was reading the comments on Foxnews a couple of days ago and someone stated they had moved from Nevada a few years ago.  Curious they cecked and found out someone had voted in their name.  Their were a whole bunch of calls for them to report the fraud.  The problem is there is no way you can see who you voted for in Nevada.  Russian troll or a disgruntled Trump supporter?  It doesn't matter.  The disinformation is a lot realer than any significant fraud.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #801 on: November 21, 2020, 10:40:21 AM »
If someone were able to sit back at a distance and watch all of this as a neutral observer they would notice an elegant symmetry to the way both sides are playing the game. Move and counter and to a great extent using a mirror of the opponent's strategy.

"Performative strategy" is right. That's the perfect description for what Trump is doing right now. It's also the perfect description for what the Democrats have been doing for the past four years. The Russian collusion hoax. Fomenting violence in the streets as a political tool to hurt Trump in this election. The sham impeachment.

Sure some or perhaps even most people thought it was all legit.

And now the mirror with the massive voter fraud angle. The Trump campaign had their Russian meetings to give cover for the accusations against them and the Democrats have their constant refusal to accept voter I.D. requirements and lax canvassing and mail in ballot procedures that give cover to accusations of potential fraud against them. All to weaken the opposition and fire up the base to encourage voter turnout while sucking up all the oxygen in the room to keep the other side from having the energy required to implement their agenda. And it works. Most of the people even believe they are absolutely right.

As one of the greatest philosophers of our time once said, "... Just remember. It's not a lie... if you believe it..."

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #802 on: November 21, 2020, 12:01:33 PM »
This should be interesting: Trump and the Trump campaign are being sued in federal court, where they are being accused of violating the Voting Rights Act by trying to undermine the election results in Michigan.

The claim is that the president and his surrogates violated the Voting Rights Act by "Exerting pressure on state and local officials not to count or certify voters" as those actions violated section 11(b) of the act, because it involves conduct that actually does, or just attempts to, intimidate, threaten or coerce people involved in aiding a person to vote or attempt to vote.

Note that under the act "voting" is defined to include not just the act of voting and a bunch of other stuff around the act itself, but also having ballots counted properly and having them included in vote totals.

Unlike the wave of nuisance suits with which Trump's campaign and surrogates have swamped the courts, this suit would seem to have substance.

...

My guess is that this suit will not be summarily dismissed on its merits.

I don't think that's going to end where you think it will. The case will likely either be dismissed/overturned on lack of standing/lack of evidence to bring the suit(the persons "being coerced" aren't part of the suit, or even testifying to support the claim).. Or even gets overturned on the grounds of being unconstitutional due to restricting Political Speech.

Although the overturn is a extreme reach. More likely the case simply gets dismissed from lack of evidence/standing.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2020, 12:04:06 PM by TheDeamon »

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #803 on: November 21, 2020, 12:30:37 PM »
Yeah, I also think there isn't enough anywhere near enough evidence to convict Trump of crimes at this point in a court of law.

To condemn him morally yes, oh he's definitely guilty as hell.

But there's not enough evidence to actually convict him legally here.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #804 on: November 21, 2020, 01:19:35 PM »
The case will likely either be dismissed/overturned on lack of standing/lack of evidence to bring the suit(the persons "being coerced" aren't part of the suit, or even testifying to support the claim).. Or even gets overturned on the grounds of being unconstitutional due to restricting Political Speech.

Although the overturn is a extreme reach. More likely the case simply gets dismissed from lack of evidence/standing.
I don't think you understand "standing".

The suit is being brought by, among others, actual voters in the affected district, who clearly do have standing as has been agreed in Voting Rights Act case law.  The court may eventually decide (say, after the slate of electors have been selected) that continuing with the case will serve no effective purpose to those voters, but that is not a sure thing.

At any rate, whether this particular suit is likely to be successful or not, there is clearly more substance to it than to the 40-odd cases the Trump's surrogates have so far brought to court, and the existence of which many here are using as evidence that fraud likely exists.  I would just expect that the substance of this case, as has been mentioned elsewhere, would lead those same people to chastise Trump and his campaign for possibly engaging in voting fraud as well...

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #805 on: November 21, 2020, 05:58:56 PM »
Yeah, I also think there isn't enough anywhere near enough evidence to convict Trump of crimes at this point in a court of law.

To condemn him morally yes, oh he's definitely guilty as hell.

But there's not enough evidence to actually convict him legally here.

More proof of Democrat projection. Sidney Powell release the Kraken: https://twitter.com/i/status/1327379704014393344

BTW, you do know that President Trump, in 2018, put in place an order creating a national emergency concerned with foreign election involvement, and Dominion, being a Canadian firm, fits the particulars.

Imagine the pleasure Trump would get should the U.S. government seize all assets from the Clinton's, Soros, Pelosi, Schiff, Schummer, etc. Dorsey and Zuckerberg as well. National Emergency, remember?

The seizure of the servers in Spain and Frankfort showed Trump winning 410 electoral votes - a landslide.

If you want to become welathy, invest in orange jumpsuits.

States can certify all they want. These lawsuits will decertify them.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #806 on: November 21, 2020, 06:04:28 PM »
Yeah, I also think there isn't enough anywhere near enough evidence to convict Trump of crimes at this point in a court of law.

To condemn him morally yes, oh he's definitely guilty as hell.

But there's not enough evidence to actually convict him legally here.

More proof of Democrat projection. Sidney Powell release the Kraken: https://twitter.com/i/status/1327379704014393344

Another we’re about to put out all the evidence statement. Good luck with that football Charlie Brown.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #807 on: November 21, 2020, 07:09:05 PM »
More proof of Democrat projection. Sidney Powell release the Kraken: https://twitter.com/i/status/1327379704014393344

BTW, you do know that President Trump, in 2018, put in place an order creating a national emergency concerned with foreign election involvement, and Dominion, being a Canadian firm, fits the particulars.

Imagine the pleasure Trump would get should the U.S. government seize all assets from the Clinton's, Soros, Pelosi, Schiff, Schummer, etc. Dorsey and Zuckerberg as well. National Emergency, remember?

The seizure of the servers in Spain and Frankfort showed Trump winning 410 electoral votes - a landslide.

If you want to become welathy, invest in orange jumpsuits.

States can certify all they want. These lawsuits will decertify them.

You live in a parallel reality, mate.

There's been no seizures of servers in Spain, Frankfurt, etc. Not even Trump claims any such happened. You keep repeating random fictions you've heard by random people on the internet.

Seriati, cherry, noel, everyone else here who voted for Trump, can you please speak to this guy a few words, just to try to break him out of his insanity? You know he won't listen to anyone who opposes Trump, but perhaps other Trump supporters might save the guy from his spiral down into insanity, if you spoke to him.

Or do you guys agree with what he's saying?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #808 on: November 21, 2020, 07:20:23 PM »
More proof of Democrat projection. Sidney Powell release the Kraken: https://twitter.com/i/status/1327379704014393344
You just posted a tweet from 8 days ago... that has got to be the slowest moving kraken in history.  And in the ensuing 8 days, still no evidence has been brought forward.  She even refused to provide Tucker Carlson with any evidence... Tucker Carlson, pointing out that Sidney Powell refused to provide evidence backing up her statements.  She even told Carlson to stop calling.

When you've lost even Tucker Carlson...

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #809 on: November 21, 2020, 07:27:20 PM »
Donald,
(in my best Vinzinni voice)  You've fallen for one of the classic blunders: never go in against a Trumpist in a battle of stupid.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #810 on: November 21, 2020, 07:35:35 PM »
Even that liberal bastion The National Review (obviously bought and paid for by George Soros) is not a fan of what Trump is doing.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/11/trumps-disgraceful-gambit/

Of course they are just a bunch of RINO's who have always had it in for Trump. Part of the swamp.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #811 on: November 21, 2020, 07:36:13 PM »
Donald,
(in my best Vinzinni voice)  You've fallen for one of the classic blunders: never go in against a Trumpist in a battle of stupid.

Except the Trump side is usually accurate and the smarmy, baiting side, is usually wrong.

Quote
Sidney Powell says “multiple people” were watching the fraud happen in "real-time". So, let's look at things that substantiate this and the actions we have seen recently:

1) Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity May 11, 2017 to January 3, 2018.
2) Executive Order 13848 signed September 12, 2018
3) On Election night, Trump and his campaign team assembled in the Eisenhower Building
4) Know what is there? A SCIF facility.
5) Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. (SCIF)
6) SCIFs are NSA run that is the combination of all data collected from intelligence agencies.
7) They were monitoring the fraud in real-time.
8 ) Then, CIA removed from briefings.
9) FBI removed from briefings.
10) CIA server farm raided in Europe.
11) Krebs fired.
12) Chris Miller consolidating all special forces under him.
13) General Flynn working with Rudy & Sidney.
14) Soros, Obama, Dominion, Smartmatic all mentioned

The reality is --- they know and the biggest fraud case in the history of the world is upon us.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #812 on: November 21, 2020, 07:40:03 PM »
Then put up.  Show the evidence to a judge.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #813 on: November 21, 2020, 07:52:27 PM »
And another Trump campaign federal lawsuit (this one in Pennsylvania) gets tossed by a judge

One has to ask whether the lawyers have any actual intent to make a case, or whether bringing these suits is meant exclusively to pander to folks like wmLambert.  The Judge, once again, was having none of it:

Quote
Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated.

One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.

In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #814 on: November 21, 2020, 08:26:36 PM »
I think I've decided that Lambert isn't a troll or a deluded individual. He or she is actually writing a dissertation on the reaction to baldly obvious disinformation.

kidv

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #815 on: November 22, 2020, 11:41:31 AM »
What on earth is WmLambert quoting in his block quote uncited?  A direct QAnon post? (I ask seriously?) This might be the first time I see a primary window into this.

So I dutifully read through 14 numbered statements, with a description of each more frightful event building on the last, and we get to number 13:

"13) General Flynn working with Rudy & Sidney."

The linchpin of salvation from the apocalypse is that Michael Flynn has entered the room? (talking with his attorney, no less, but now adding Rudy to the mix).

But just to skip back to reality, regardless of Flynn's still status as a convict and whether that's set aside, going back to the beginning the independent analysis was that Michael Flynn was not a smart man who had been over his head all the way up the ladder. The incidents which led to his conviction really seemed to be  a summary example of his level of competency.  It's instructive to see him pulled into the story, like this were a novel, and he's Iron Man or something who's been waiting in the wings.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/michael-flynn-general-chaos
An interesting read.

kidv

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #816 on: November 22, 2020, 11:58:12 AM »
https://www.justsecurity.org/70431/understanding-the-michael-flynn-case-separating-the-wheat-from-the-chaff-and-the-proper-from-the-improper/

An rather indepth article about the Flynn affair that I stumbled across while confirming the "General Chaos" article was the one I was thinking of.  This one appears to be from a actual perspective of (wait for it . . .) Just Security. ;)

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #817 on: November 22, 2020, 12:59:31 PM »
Re the PA decision. Rudy thanks the court for a quick refusal so that they can go to the SC.  Read that as Rudy gets paid more for a case that is doomed to fail.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #818 on: November 22, 2020, 03:36:02 PM »
You saw where the judge said they had supplied no evidence, not even enough to throw out 1 vote, much less all of the votes. That has been the recurring theme. Trump's team say they have evidence, but when it comes time, it is either so weak as to not be worth the paper it is written on, or non existant.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #819 on: November 22, 2020, 03:36:55 PM »
We're seeing the same type of "logic" used with the PA mail in voting situation as we saw with Obamacare and the individual mandate. There is less concern with legality and Constitutionality than there is with the effects of declaring them illegal and unConstitutional, namely that people will lose their health insurance and that people will lose the votes they cast in good faith in accordance with common understanding of the law at the time, not respectively.

The effects of a law should have no bearing on whether it is legal or not, whether it is Constitutional or not.

By that standard a law could be passed requiring everyone in America to get a Covid-19 vaccine. Hundreds of thousands of lives would be saved. We could get back to normal tout suite.

And those are most of the arguments we see for these types of laws. What would happen if they were declared illegal, null and void? Chaos. Injustice. It just wouldn't be fair.

What we don't see is the cold, dispassionate, logical, objective analysis of why the laws are actually legit. Where in the Constitution does it specifically grant the federal government the power to make any American a criminal if they don't buy a specific product from a for-profit corporation?

I'm not familiar with the details on why Pennsylvania's mail-in ballot rules needed to be passed by amending their constitution as opposed to the usual way in the legislature, but that's the crux of the issue, not the effect it will have. Even for people who are familiar there may be wide differences of opinion. Perhaps it was okay with just the legislature doing it. And maybe if it did need to pass by constitutional amendment they could do that and include a provision that ex-post factos it so those ballots count, and now if that can't pass then I don't know what to tell you. Good luck.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2020, 03:40:13 PM by cherrypoptart »

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #820 on: November 22, 2020, 03:37:03 PM »
I could have sworn Cherry had posted something after my last reply that I was replying to.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #821 on: November 22, 2020, 03:39:22 PM »
Yeah, sorry about that. I edited it but it's cool.

It's not a matter of evidence of fraudulent votes.

It's a matter of evidence of whether or not the changes to the mail-in ballot procedures passed by Republicans in the Pennsylvania legislature required an amendment to the Pennsylvania constitution or not.

That would be one of the worst sorts of dirty tricks for Republicans in the Pennsylvania legislature to pass that legislation only to have it ruled null and void for essentially procedural reasons especially considering that if people knew they couldn't vote that way they would have gone in person, or did whatever it took to have their votes counted, and now instead they get thrown out.

I wouldn't bet on that happening though. It could be fine the way they passed it. It could also be that the courts rule that the votes stand as they are even if it should have been passed by amendment.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2020, 03:43:36 PM by cherrypoptart »

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #822 on: November 22, 2020, 03:42:23 PM »
So they were arguing that changes to the State Constitution, done by Republicans, was too much?

It is actually hard to figure what all of the different arguments are since there are so many that have been tossed out due to no evidence.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #823 on: November 22, 2020, 03:46:11 PM »
Well the changes were done by Republicans but they weren't done to the state constitution, only to the regular laws, and the argument is their state constitution needed to be amended for those types of changes.

I could agree with some serious protesting if Trump went to the Supreme Court with that and managed to steal Pennsylvania, maybe even the Presidency.

But anyway, apparently that's their play.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #824 on: November 22, 2020, 03:54:41 PM »
By that standard a law could be passed requiring everyone in America to get a Covid-19 vaccine. Hundreds of thousands of lives would be saved. We could get back to normal tout suite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws.

--

Now I don't know about the *federal government*, but given the above SC decision, state governments certainly can pass such laws.

Quote
I could agree with some serious protesting if Trump went to the Supreme Court with that and managed to steal Pennsylvania, maybe even the Presidency.

Even if Trump somehow took Pennsylvania, that would of course not be nearly sufficient for him to reach the number of necessary electors. He'd need to find ways to take several more states, and he's not been having any luck so far.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #825 on: November 22, 2020, 03:56:58 PM »
Protesting is not the right word.  Rioting is what I think you will see.  But Trump does not care about that.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #826 on: November 22, 2020, 04:29:12 PM »
I agree that state governments can pass those types of laws just like they can pass an individual mandate the way Romney did. Something in the Constitution about "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Unless the Supreme Court pulls some sort of right to privacy out of their rears the way they did with Roe v. Wade.

From the general internet:

"What does the 14th Amendment say about privacy?

Fourteenth Amendment: Prohibits states from making laws that infringe upon the personal autonomy protections provided for in the first thirteen amendments. Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, a state could make laws that violated freedom of speech, religion, etc."

It would be interesting to see if the Supreme Court we have now would find a right to privacy, my body my choice, applicable to refusal to get a vaccine which would be extra interesting if they did it at the same time as they overturned Roe v. Wade, especially if the usual suspects switched their positions with the liberals saying there is no right to control your own body when it comes to vaccinations but the conservatives say yes there is, the exact opposite of their positions on abortion.

Just as an aside, it would seem like if Obamacare and the mandate is Constitutional then forcing people to get vaccinated is also Constitutional. All you do is pass the law like they did with Obamacare and have it say that you must buy a vaccination which can be subsidized 100% on a means tested basis and if you don't then you get fined $5000, or taxed $5000 by the IRS; same difference, whatever way floats Roberts' boat. That was always the danger of the mandate, that the government can now make you do anything they want you to just by making you pay for it and then tax-fining you if you refuse.

This might go better in the Coronavirus thread, but anyway...

I did see another story in yahoo news decrying how many Supreme Court decisions lately have been going against voter rights.

This wasn't the story I saw but it brings us back to the election results. This story was from a while back now so it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

https://www.yahoo.com/now/scotus-mail-voting-ruling-raises-161525205.html

"Tonight four conservative Supreme Court justices indicated their support for a radical, anti-democratic theory that would stop state Supreme Courts from enforcing state election laws to protect the franchise," Slate's Mark Joseph Stern wrote. "And Barrett could soon give them a fifth vote . . . The 2020 election may be in her hands."

Though the court allowed the state order to stand, "that victory may only last a matter of days," Vox's Ian Millhiser reported. "Indeed, the GOP may be able to raise this issue again after Barrett is confirmed, potentially securing a court order requiring states like Pennsylvania to toss out an unknown number of ballots that arrive after Election Day. If the election is close, that could be enough to change the result."

As always, one thing to watch on rulings is who is ruling which way, even in the lower courts. Is it just one judge? Or is it more than one but they are unanimous? Or are there split decisions? If it's only one judge or the decisions are split that doesn't really tell us much until the case gets to the highest court it's going to get to.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #827 on: November 22, 2020, 05:00:21 PM »
The SC can only come into play if there's enough of a case to give them cover to hand the election Trump. They might have been willing to swing a close election, if Trump could create enough of a controversy over votes from a single deciding state. They aren't going to change the results from at least three states. Not that Trump has any evidence to support overthrowing the results of even one state.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #828 on: November 22, 2020, 06:11:11 PM »
I'm not familiar with the details on why Pennsylvania's mail-in ballot rules needed to be passed by amending their constitution as opposed to the usual way in the legislature, but that's the crux of the issue, not the effect it will have. Even for people who are familiar there may be wide differences of opinion. Perhaps it was okay with just the legislature doing it. And maybe if it did need to pass by constitutional amendment they could do that and include a provision that ex-post factos it so those ballots count, and now if that can't pass then I don't know what to tell you. Good luck.

Oh, right. So this must be the 14th Amendment case they're presenting. Where they're invoking the equal protections clause because Absentee Ballots are being handled differently than in-person ballots, meaning that the two types of ballots are not legally the same and thus in violation of the equal protection clause.

In which case you're right, they don't need to "present evidence of fraud" they just have to present evidence that they're not treated equally.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #829 on: November 22, 2020, 06:16:12 PM »
By that standard a law could be passed requiring everyone in America to get a Covid-19 vaccine. Hundreds of thousands of lives would be saved. We could get back to normal tout suite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws.

Which has since been effectively overturned/amended to the point of beinging meaningless, or else we wouldn't have been having problems with the vaxxers because they'd be unable to refuse to be vaccinated.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #830 on: November 22, 2020, 07:35:04 PM »
Weird news about the Trump legal team.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-legal-team-disavows-association-232100382.html

This seems odd.  Going to have to look for other sources.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #831 on: November 22, 2020, 07:38:48 PM »
Which has since been effectively overturned/amended to the point of beinging meaningless, or else we wouldn't have been having problems with the vaxxers because they'd be unable to refuse to be vaccinated.
Do you have references to the case law overriding Jacobson?  I am unaware of any, and it doesn't follow that just because anti-vaxxers exist, then Jacobson must no longer be relevant - that would only be pertinent if they were disobeying laws mandating vaccinations and were not being punished.  But there have been no recent laws universally (within a jurisdiction) forcing all residents to accept vaccinations. 

There are state level school vaccination mandates however, and those have been consistently shown to pass constitutional muster; somewhat recently in Maricopa County Health Department v. Har­mon (1987), the right to be educated did not override the state's responsibility to protect the health of its citizens.   Neither is a first amendment religious freedom argument an absolute trump card; in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990) SCOTUS established the modern standard by which first amendment religious freedoms must be balanced against a governments power to safeguard health as follows: “the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a ‘valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)’ ”  SCOTUS re-affirmed this when striking down the relevant section of the so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

No rights are absolute, and neither is the exercise of personal liberty.  In ruling on Jacobson the court identified a basic minimum set of standards that such a law would need to meet: necessity, reasonable means, proportionality, and harm avoidance.  I have read of nothing suggesting this standard has changed to be more restrictive of states, or would be likely to change if a court were to rule again today - it would certainly reassert that governments have the authority to protect public health, and to balance that, based on likely very similar standards, against personal liberty.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #832 on: November 22, 2020, 07:40:34 PM »
Weird news about the Trump legal team.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-legal-team-disavows-association-232100382.html

This seems odd.  Going to have to look for other sources.
I imagine they don't want to be responsible when the Kraken is released (they can make such a mess!) and if it really does get biblical next week in Georgia, I think they want deniability...

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #833 on: November 22, 2020, 09:01:02 PM »
This has actually really got to hurt: Trump campaign cuts Sidney Powell from president’s legal team

So, now Yahoo and Politico are both reporting that the Trump campaign thinks Sidney Powell is no longer cut out for the "elite strike force" announced by Trump just days ago.


kidv

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #834 on: November 23, 2020, 12:36:56 AM »
"A source who spoke to Breitbart News on background suggested that the team had hoped to work with her, but that Powell’s public claims had gone beyond the scope of the evidence they had seen and believed they could prove in court."

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/11/22/trump-legal-team-distances-from-sidney-powell/

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #835 on: November 23, 2020, 07:31:44 AM »
When the quality of your evidence does not meet the Trump campaign's standards...

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #836 on: November 23, 2020, 09:38:11 AM »
Even Fox is reporting it, so it must be true.  I wonder want OAN is reporting?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #837 on: November 23, 2020, 09:59:27 AM »
FOX News is now part of the socialist conspiracy, Mark... or didn't you get the memo?

(poor Fox - they weaponized conspiracy theories and radicalized the radical Republican base to such a degree that they are now reaping the whirlwind as that radical base is demanding ever more insane content, and Fox finds themselves in the unenviable position of not being able to keep up with the post-fact, post-truth crazy.)

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #838 on: November 23, 2020, 10:06:27 AM »
Ok so what will be the next 70D chess move that WmLambert will bring forth that shows Trump is winning?

Ouija Nightmare

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #839 on: November 23, 2020, 10:21:16 AM »
Ok so what will be the next 70D chess move that WmLambert will bring forth that shows Trump is winning?

Well there is the plan to just get the states to send electors that don’t match the votes.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #840 on: November 23, 2020, 10:34:54 AM »
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/22/joe-biden-won-illegal-votes-thousands-noncitizens-/

"Based in New Jersey, Just Facts concluded that thousands of “extra” noncitizen votes went to Mr. Biden, enough to flip Arizona (plus 51,081) and Georgia (plus 54,950), but not sufficient to flip the election.

“This is just one kind of fraud,” Mr. Agresti told The Washington Times. “It’s a sizable number, which is the point. It also decimates the predominant narrative that there is no evidence of large-scale fraud in U.S. elections.”

Is evidence of this possible? Since votes cannot be matched to people after the fact, how could anyone ever prove this?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #841 on: November 23, 2020, 10:39:42 AM »
First of all who cares if there were enough "extra" votes in NJ to over turn AZ and GA?  It does not work that way.  if you could move votes, then we could move votes from CA and NY and flip about a dozen states in the south and mid west.

Not sure this is proof of fraud. This is some type of analysis from a survey and other stuff in the past.  Probably something to look into but not enough to change the results.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #842 on: November 23, 2020, 11:01:56 AM »
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/22/joe-biden-won-illegal-votes-thousands-noncitizens-/

"Based in New Jersey, Just Facts concluded that thousands of “extra” noncitizen votes went to Mr. Biden, enough to flip Arizona (plus 51,081) and Georgia (plus 54,950), but not sufficient to flip the election.

“This is just one kind of fraud,” Mr. Agresti told The Washington Times. “It’s a sizable number, which is the point. It also decimates the predominant narrative that there is no evidence of large-scale fraud in U.S. elections.”

Is evidence of this possible? Since votes cannot be matched to people after the fact, how could anyone ever prove this?

I don't think they could prove it after the fact, even if it happened, no.

The guy only does guesswork statistics. Basically he says:
- There's X number of illegal immigrants in each state
- Based on studies, he says there's Y% probability of them registering to vote illegally.
- Based on polling, he says there's Z% probability of them voting Democrat.
- so, largely based on polling, he concludes by multiplying x * y% * z% to get how many votes he calculates were cast illegally for Biden.

But polling and guesswork is not good evidence. There's like a 4% people who respond "Yes" to the question if they've ever been decapitated, because people don't understand the question, or like to joke with the pollster, or simply press the wrong button in phone surveys.

So if someone has polled noncitizens and concluded e.g. 4% people of noncitizens vote, the actual number could be as low to 1% or 0%, and the other people just didn't get the question (they might have thought it meant *would* you register to vote if it was legal, or they meant that they'd voted in their home countries, or something else altogether) or pressed the wrong button or something.

There's another point that would hugely inflate the numbers he calculated -- there's a study about noncitizens registering to vote illegally, but that's often done accidentally, while they're applying for something else (like a driving licence). So if he concludes that y% of noncitizens vote, just because y% of noncitizens *registered* to vote, that would be a *massive* overestimation on his part.

Anyway, no actual evidence he gives about the current election, just a calculation from past studies about how many votes may be getting cast illegally.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #843 on: November 23, 2020, 11:23:00 AM »
Cherry,

as a rule don't bother with the Washington times.

The claim by Agressi is using a old dominion survey that had 38 out 32800 respondents indicate they were non citizens who voted.  He then uses that to extrapolate the national number of non citizen voters.

"Just Facts’ numbers came from a study by Old Dominion University researchers. That study was based on a survey which showed that 38 people out 32,800 claimed to be noncitizens who had actually voted. Just Facts used data from the study and census estimates on the noncitizen population to come up with a national figure of noncitizen voters."

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/23/just-facts-defends-research-finding-illegal-voting/

 As we have discussed elsewhere the error threshold (due to 'mischief' responses - where people deliberately provide false responses) for surveys is so high that any response below 1% (and often below 5% depending on topic, survey population, etc) is essentially meaningless and can't be used to infer anything about the population.

This is a frequent error made when reporting on surveys.  There are ways to screen out mischief responses but most surveys don't bother.

So he is making an invalid inference because he lacks any relevant knowledge on the topic.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #844 on: November 23, 2020, 05:44:40 PM »

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #845 on: November 23, 2020, 05:59:38 PM »
Rush has now turned on Powell

https://www.yahoo.com/news/rush-limbaugh-does-full-180-212356868.html

Not surprised.

I think some of the radio shock jocks propagandists have gone so far down the rabbit hole they believe the crap they gave birth do. 
They have become the Ouroboros, using past statements as proof for their current statements, creating the very things they fear

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #846 on: November 23, 2020, 06:58:33 PM »
Trump just authorized the GSA to recognize Biden as President Elect.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #847 on: November 23, 2020, 07:23:20 PM »
And MI certified their election results so that is done.  The fat lady is heading towards center stage.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #848 on: November 24, 2020, 12:01:20 PM »
Trump just authorized the GSA to recognize Biden as President Elect.

Or rather the GSA authorized the transition to begin and after the news broke Trump tried to take credit for it.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #849 on: November 24, 2020, 12:02:21 PM »
Rush has now turned on Powell

https://www.yahoo.com/news/rush-limbaugh-does-full-180-212356868.html

Not suprised.

Its good. Maybe wmLambert will listen to him.