Election Results

[yossarian22c]

You realize that the only reason there's a lack of confidence in the vote is because the GOP has spent the last decade screaming about voter fraud without any evidence that it's a significant problem? Yet your proposal says nothing of getting the GOP to stop making voting a partisan issue.

You realize that is a direct and provable lie, don't you? There has been voter fraud and senior Democrats have been sent to prison for election after election. It seems to be a way of life for them.

Can you give a list of senior democrats who have been sent to prison for voter fraud in the last 20 years. And how many votes each manipulated.

Bonus points if you can beat the Republican Leslie McCrae Dowless Jr. responsible for around 900 potentially fraudulent votes.

[Aris Katsaris]

No matter how innocent you claim to be, any Democrat apologist in this forum must admit it is the Democrats who have tried to steak this election.

No, it's the Republican president who asked people to vote twice.

This video gives a collection of all the lawsuits made and the 'evidence' that the Trump team has shown:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6pI3-nWmSQ

Case after case, each one gets dismissed with each judge saying the equivalent of "No evidence has been shown that there was any illegality".

At this point, all the Trumpers have to go on, is their assumption stated in advance, that they can only lose if there's fraud. That's the only evidence they have: They lost, therefore it must be fraud.

[TheDrake]

Can you give a list of senior democrats who have been sent to prison for voter fraud in the last 20 years.

I was kind of curious about that myself. Don't hold your breath waiting for Lambert to actually back up his nonsense.

[rightleft22]

Lambert like a very large percentage of the 70 million that voted for Trump believe without any doubt that the democrats are trying to steal the election regardless of proof.
Accusing the 'other' while looking away from the realty as presented by the facts. When truth and facts don't matter neither does reality. 

I don't see how dialog is possible when the experience of reality is so different. 
For myself I find myself asking if its my experience of reality that might be off.. I wonder if the Lambert's ever ask themselves that question.

[msquared]

He calls it transference.  You project on other what you would do.
Trump loves to cheat (see his personal life and his golf game) so he is positive every one else is cheating. I mean why not?  It helps you win and winning is everything. 

[TheDrake]

Can you give a list of senior democrats who have been sent to prison for voter fraud in the last 20 years.

I was kind of curious about that myself. Don't hold your breath waiting for Lambert to actually back up his nonsense.

Here's the giant master list of about 1000 cases in the past 20 years.

Heritage hears a who

The vast majority of these were attempting to influence a local race, which makes sense. \\

Shenanigans are usually detected easily.

Olivia Lee Reynolds was convicted of 24 counts of voter fraud.
While working on the 2013 campaign for her boyfriend, Dothan City
Commissioner Amos Newsome, Reynolds filled out voters’ ballots
for them and told others for whom to vote. Her fraud had definite
consequences: Commissioner Newsome won reelection by a mere
14 votes, losing the in-person vote by a wide margin but winning an
incredible 96 percent of the absentee vote. Newsome himself faced
pressure to resign as a consequence. Reynolds was sentenced to
serve six months in a community corrections facility. She is appealing
the conviction.

In a word, stupid people. Like this foolishness eating criminal penalties for five votes in a two bit Alabama election.

Gay Nell Tinker, a former circuit clerk for Hale County, pleaded guilty
to multiple counts of absentee ballot fraud after her scheme to
orchestrate fraudulent absentee ballots for the benefit of multiple
candidates was uncovered. She admitted to falsifying the ballots
of five voters to benefit certain candidates, including her brother,
Circuit Court Judge Marvin Wiggins, and her husband, Senator
Bobby Singleton (D–Greensboro).

These jokers are decidedly represented by Republicans as well.

Jason Holly and Jessica Sundell pleaded guilty in 2006 to a felony
charge of fraudulent completion of an affidavit of registration, and
were sentenced to three years’ probation. It was discovered that
more than 100 people who thought they were signing petitions
to cure breast cancer and punish child molesters were actually
registering as Republicans in an elaborate vote-flipping scheme.
Donahue Farrow pleaded guilty in 2008 for his involvement
in this scheme. He was sentenced to 46 days in jail and three
years’ probation. Five others have also pleaded guilty over their
involvement in this scheme.

Rebekah Joy Paul pleaded guilty to falsifying voter registrations prior
to the 2012 general election. While employed as a voter registration
worker with a political consulting firm hired by the Republican Party,
she created false voter registrations. She and her co-conspirator
admitted to faking 27 registrations for Duval County. She was
sentenced to community service

And the Canadians do it too!

Joshua Workman, a Canadian citizen who was one of the youngest
delegates to the 2000 Republican National Convention, was charged
by the Department of Justice with casting ineligible votes during
the 2000 and 2002 primary and general elections in Avery County.
He made false statements claiming U.S. citizenship in order to vote.
As part of a plea agreement, Workman pleaded guilty to a federal
misdemeanor charge of providing false information to election
officials and subsequently returned to Canada.

[TheDrake]

One law firm however has had enough. Porter Wright Morris & Arthur filed a suit on behalf of the Trump campaign in Pennsylvania just days ago, but has already withdrawn from the case.

"Plaintiffs and Porter Wright have reached a mutual agreement that plaintiffs will be best served if Porter Wright withdraws," it said in a court filing.

Even Trump's lawyers are jumping ship. And you know it is bad when a lawyer turns down billable hours.

[rightleft22]

He calls it transference.  You project on other what you would do.
Trump loves to cheat (see his personal life and his golf game) so he is positive every one else is cheating. I mean why not?  It helps you win and winning is everything.

Its beyond transference and projection. IMO
Lambert appears to authentically believe Trump is a man of the highest integrity and morality.   Nothing Trump did, does or says can or should be questioned. 
Trump does not cheat at golf he manages the reality of the experience. If the score shows that he lost its because everyone else cheated, which excuses his cheating as not being cheating.

[TheDeamon]

Even Trump's lawyers are jumping ship. And you know it is bad when a lawyer turns down billable hours.

Might have something to do with groups Doxing the lawyers in question, and many of their clients as well when doxing the lawyer isn't enough.

[DonaldD]

Trump campaign lawyers giving up on Arizona:

Lawyers for the Trump campaign dropped its lawsuit seeking a review of all ballots cast on Election Day after finding that the margin of victory for the presidential contest in Arizona could not be overcome.

“Since the close of yesterday’s hearing, the tabulation of votes statewide has rendered unnecessary a judicial ruling as to the presidential electors,” the Trump campaign wrote in a filing. It said it did want the judge to rule on their requests to review votes for two down-ballot races.

[Grant]

EXERPTS FROM AN INTERVIEW WITH PETER NAVARRO, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF TRADE AND MANUFACTURING POLICY

PETER:  Maria, we're moving forward here at the Whitehouse under the assumption that there will be a second Trump term. 

MARIA:  Blink blink blink blink blink blink

PETER: Clearly the President won this election, was leading on election day, and after election day somehow in these key battleground states they got just enough votes to catch up to the President, and that's kind of what is being investigated.

FOX BUISINESS:  Shows Electoral College Map - Shows Biden 290, Trump 217.  Shows national popular vote map, Biden up by 5,183,583 votes. 

PETER:  Any speculation about what Joe Biden might do is moot at this point. 

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-official-peter-navarro-says-white-house-staff-assumes-there-will-be-a-second-trump-term/

This is one of the geniuses behind L'Orange's trade policy.  I'm reminded of members of the Nazi party who refused to accept defeat after the failure of Citadel, and the successes of Avalanche and Overlord. 

[TheDrake]

Even Trump's lawyers are jumping ship. And you know it is bad when a lawyer turns down billable hours.

Might have something to do with groups Doxing the lawyers in question, and many of their clients as well when doxing the lawyer isn't enough.

Might have something to do with not wanting to hire a firm that likes to fire off frivolous lawsuits undermining the Constitution and the American electoral process.

[DonaldD]

Even Trump's lawyers are jumping ship. And you know it is bad when a lawyer turns down billable hours.

Might have something to do with groups Doxing the lawyers in question, and many of their clients as well when doxing the lawyer isn't enough.

Might have something to do with not wanting to hire a firm that likes to fire off frivolous lawsuits undermining the Constitution and the American electoral process.

Or maybe, they are afraid of getting sanctioned by the judge and having their careers derailed...

[DonaldD]

EXERPTS FROM AN INTERVIEW WITH PETER NAVARRO, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF TRADE AND MANUFACTURING POLICY

PETER:  Maria, we're moving forward here at the Whitehouse under the assumption that there will be a second Trump term. 

MARIA:  Blink blink blink blink blink blink

[msquared]

I guess when Trump is not paying for all of these suits why not spend other peoples money? That is what he is best at.

[TheDrake]

I guess when Trump is not paying for all of these suits why not spend other peoples money? That is what he is best at.

Villagers for Trump Founder David Gee said $7,700 was collected to help Trump’s legal fees in challenging the election outcome – with promises of more to come.

“We had many Trump supporters waiting on our parade to show support,” he said. “It was a very good day for our members.”

Because of course they did, and naturally dozens of Trumpians own golf carts.

[msquared]

Except more than half of that donation is going to pay off his campaign debt, not the legal fee's for the challenges.  It is in the small print of the donation form.

[rightleft22]

Going to look into my crystal ball....

I see future charges that Trump and members of his family embezzled funds from campaign donations for personal use.

[yossarian22c]

Going to look into my crystal ball....

I see future charges that Trump and members of his family embezzled funds from campaign donations for personal use.

Nah, the other half of the money goes to Trump’s pac. He can use that in lots of ways.

[msquared]

Well they have called NC for Trump and GA for Biden. Trump lost 2 more law suits and drop the one in AZ.  Legal options running out fast.

306 to 232.

msquared

[yossarian22c]

Even Trump's lawyers are jumping ship. And you know it is bad when a lawyer turns down billable hours.

Might have something to do with groups Doxing the lawyers in question, and many of their clients as well when doxing the lawyer isn't enough.

Might have something to do with not wanting to hire a firm that likes to fire off frivolous lawsuits undermining the Constitution and the American electoral process.

Or maybe the retainer check bounced or didn't arrive. The campaign was in debt, the money Trump's raising "for legal fees" is going to pay off the campaign debts and to his pac. Maybe all those billable hours weren't looking so profitable after all.

[noel c.]

Y-22,

“I'll listen and I'm interested in if you have evidence of any level of voter fraud.”

Good, that is one of the objectives of the Georgia hand-recount, where a .25% vote gap between the candidates yields the type of numbers that you are looking for (~14,000). November 20th is the recount deadline. Wisconsin is also on the path to a recount, with a .6% difference (20,000 votes). Michigan compared their census data with voter registration, and found something that really caught my attention. There are 240,000 more registered voters than there are people over the age of eighteen. Compounded by 234 pages of sworn affidavits alleging voting irregularities in Wayne County, Michigan, the next week should be very interesting to follow. The real fight, in terms of institutional change, will be over the constitutionality of extended voting deadlines in Minnesota, and North Carolina. ACB did not participate in the recent SCOTUS ruling, and the Court will be taking up the issue again.

“I've already posted that I don't like ballot harvesting. And I'll give you 100 fraudulent ballots without evidence.“

That is refreshing. Ballot harvesting is probably the biggest obstacle to election integrity, which is also why Democratic organizations have fought hard to preserve the practice. Legally, it will be a real challenge to eliminate. I don’t need the “100” ballots, but why would you offer them?

Would you be complacent with a Biden presidency being obstructed in the same manner as the Trump presidency was?

[yossarian22c]

Y-22,

“I'll listen and I'm interested in if you have evidence of any level of voter fraud.”

Good, that is one of the objectives of the Georgia hand-recount, where a .25% vote gap between the candidates yields the type of numbers that you are looking for (~14,000). November 20th is the recount deadline. Wisconsin is also on the path to a recount, with a .6% difference (20,000 votes).

Modern recounts have never changed the final outcome by more than a couple hundred votes. I'm not sure how Trump demanding recounts is evidence of anything.

Michigan compared their census data with voter registration, and found something that really caught my attention. There are 240,000 more registered voters than there are people over the age of eighteen.

2010 census? States grow kids age onto the voting rolls.

Compounded by 234 pages of sworn affidavits alleging voting irregularities in Wayne County, Michigan, the next week should be very interesting to follow.

Depends on what they are swearing too.

The real fight, in terms of institutional change, will be over the constitutionality of extended voting deadlines in Minnesota, and North Carolina. ACB did not participate in the recent SCOTUS ruling, and the Court will be taking up the issue again.

No fraud there. I don't see the SC delegitimizing votes states said would be accepted before the election. Also there aren't enough of those to change the outcome in any state.

“I've already posted that I don't like ballot harvesting. And I'll give you 100 fraudulent ballots without evidence.“

That is refreshing. Ballot harvesting is probably the biggest obstacle to election integrity, which is also why Democratic organizations have fought hard to preserve the practice. Legally, it will be a real challenge to eliminate. I don’t need the “100” ballots, but why would you offer them?

Clearly you do. You haven't shown a single fraudulent ballot yet.

Would you be complacent with a Biden presidency being obstructed in the same manner as the Trump presidency was?

Doesn't matter what I am complacent with, I fully expect the senate to fully obstruct anyway.

[msquared]

Well 4 GOP governors have said they will not entertain the possible plan Trump has to over ride the popular vote in their state. On the cynical side you could see this a them knowing that if they did, they would be voted out at the next election for screwing with the popular vote. Those running against them could run on either the Gov. let a corrupt election happen or they could say they were spineless weasels who were caving in to Trump.  The generous side is that they know their elections were fair and Trump lost their state.

I think the fat lady sings in a few weeks.

[cherrypoptart]

I was going to ask Noel to explain ballot harvesting for us but this seems to give us a good start:

https://www.findlaw.com/voting/how-u-s--elections-work/ballot-harvesting--what-is-it--how-does-it-work-.html

I wonder where this idea of fraud is coming from:

"Some see the practice of ballot harvesting as a voter service that has long-assisted elderly voters and Native American voters living on remote reservations. Others see it is a political tool that can easily lend itself to fraud."

What's interesting is how what's perfectly fine in one state like California is totally illegal in another state like North Carolina, and also interesting is how the use of ballot harvesting led to basically the total takeover of California by Democrats from Republicans.

Also interesting is how California makes it easier and easier to harvest ballots:

https://www.abc10.com/article/news/politics/elections/yes-ballot-harvesting-is-legal-in-california/103-067a65c5-9bde-4ff4-a815-97dee5597597

"Prior to 2013, a voter had to be ill or disabled for someone else to return their ballot for them. Plus, that person had to be a family member or a member of the same household.

After 2013, the law was changed. Being ill or disabled was no longer required. A family member or a member of one’s household could return ballots.

In 2016, the law changed again thanks to Assembly Bill 1921. Now, anyone could return another person’s ballot and there was no limit on how many ballots a person could return."

It seems like all one would have to do would be to carefully choose what areas to harvest ballots from. Everything else would be perfectly legal but you just don't go to areas where the Demographics favor Trump. Of course you also skip any houses with a Trump sign out front, a 100 Club sticker on the car in the driveway, and so on. Not fraud at all either; a perfectly legal way to steal an election.

[msquared]

Or Trump supporters could do the same thing for their own voters? I mean it is not against the law.

[noel c.]

Y-22,

“Modern recounts have never changed the final outcome by more than a couple hundred votes. I'm not sure how Trump demanding recounts is evidence of anything.“

North Carolina had three statewide judicial races, since 2006, ending in initial counts ranging from 3.000 to 6,000, with post-recount totals revised down to between 17, and 667 votes. In 2004, a Georgia judicial race which initially tallied a 400 vote differential, ended with a recount margin reduced to 15 votes. Pennsylvania saw the same effect in a 2010 judicial race separated by ~83,000 votes. The post-recount total narrowed the spread to 281 votes. Do you see a pattern? How would you explain it?

Outright change in the election result happened in Washington’s 2004 Governor race, and the 2008 Minnesota Senate race that saddled the nation with the mammary-grabbing clown Al Franken.

Recounts matter.

“No fraud there. I don't see the SC delegitimizing votes states said would be accepted before the election. Also there aren't enough of those to change the outcome in any state.”

Illegality takes more forms than fraud, and you are missing the larger point; conservatives want the corruption exposed, and ended.

“Clearly you do. You haven't shown a single fraudulent ballot yet.”

A “single” fraudulent ballot, or “100”, would be meaningless judging by your own statements. You wanted an election result change volume, and that requires a recount. I want the fraud prosecuted regardless of outcome.

“Doesn't matter what I am complacent with, I fully expect the senate to fully obstruct anyway.“

I am actually referring to more insidious measures employed by Barry. Do you need me to repeat what that third-world emulating community-organizer did?

M²,

“Or Trump supporters could do the same thing for their own voters? I mean it is not against the law.“

Are you, at some point, going to give evidence that you are “conservative”? Supposedly Kasich was your man based upon a principled analysis of character. Do you really want Republican’s to begin ballot harvesting?

Cherry,

“It seems like all one would have to do would be to carefully choose what areas to harvest ballots from. Everything else would be perfectly legal but you just don't go to areas where the Demographics favor Trump. Of course you also skip any houses with a Trump sign out front, a 100 Club sticker on the car in the driveway, and so on. Not fraud at all either; a perfectly legal way to steal an election.”


It is merely unethical unless a well-meaning political educator fills out ballot to “help” a voter, or uses pressure of any sort to influence a vulnerable voter’s choice. Then it is fraud, the variety that appears frequently in will modification. Proving undue influence is another matter. It is difficult even in the case of an impaired testator. Imagine trying to prove it in a gated retirement community.

[noel c.]

Correction: “North Carolina had three statewide judicial races, since 2006, ending in initial count (differentials) ranging from 3.000 to 6,000, with post-recount (spread) totals revised down to between 17, and 667 votes.“

[cherrypoptart]

"Or Trump supporters could do the same thing for their own voters? I mean it is not against the law."

It wouldn't be good for global warming with how much more gas that would require and carbon it would spew. But yeah, them's the brakes.

[LetterRip]

cherry, a handful of people collecting votes in a neighborhood is much more environmentally friendly than each person driving to the polling station
  Though less efficient than mailing the ballot.

[noel c.]

LR,

“cherry, a handful of people collecting votes in a neighborhood is much more environmentally friendly than each person driving to the polling station
  Though less efficient than mailing the ballot.”

Even in California, I have never been further from a polling station than a bike-ride, and normally it was walking distance. How much greener can you get?

[yossarian22c]

Y-22,

“Modern recounts have never changed the final outcome by more than a couple hundred votes. I'm not sure how Trump demanding recounts is evidence of anything.“

North Carolina had three statewide judicial races, since 2006, ending in initial counts ranging from 3.000 to 6,000, with post-recount totals revised down to between 17, and 667 votes. In 2004, a Georgia judicial race which initially tallied a 400 vote differential, ended with a recount margin reduced to 15 votes. Pennsylvania saw the same effect in a 2010 judicial race separated by ~83,000 votes. The post-recount total narrowed the spread to 281 votes. Do you see a pattern? How would you explain it?

The only pattern I see is you misinterpreting data. All of the numbers you gave for vote spread was the change in vote totals from the original. So in NC the strongest case you can make for a recount you had the margin in a race change from 5,988 to 6,655. The vote totals changed by 667 votes but the margin didn't change by 6,000 votes as you claimed. Same in Pennsylvania, the 83,000 vote margin changed by about 200 votes.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/could-recount-flip-key-battleground-history-says-don-t-count-n1246596

Outright change in the election result happened in Washington’s 2004 Governor race, and the 2008 Minnesota Senate race that saddled the nation with the mammary-grabbing clown Al Franken.

Recounts matter.

I agree, and in all three of those cases the original margin of victory was less than 500. Not a great precident when you're trying to make up a 12,000+ vote differential.

“No fraud there. I don't see the SC delegitimizing votes states said would be accepted before the election. Also there aren't enough of those to change the outcome in any state.”

Illegality takes more forms than fraud, and you are missing the larger point; conservatives want the corruption exposed, and ended.

Illegality that was upheld by the state's supreme court? How is that illegality or corruption.

“Clearly you do. You haven't shown a single fraudulent ballot yet.”

A “single” fraudulent ballot, or “100”, would be meaningless judging by your own statements. You wanted an election result change volume, and that requires a recount. I want the fraud prosecuted regardless of outcome.

I told you I would look at any fraudulent votes, I said I don't particularly care about 1 offs of an individual double voting or voting for a dead relative. But if you/Trump aren't demonstrating fraud in the 1,000's of votes then he could go ahead and concede, free up the intelligence community to meet with Biden, allow the government to release funds to Biden to begin the transition and do all those other things. Then you can proceed tracking down all the Trump voters in NC who listened to Trump and voted by mail then again in person and throw the book at them.

[LetterRip]

In Alaska I averaged 10 mile drive to the polling stations from work.  Arizona I had to drive 2 miles to drop off my ballot.

Since voting is based on home address rather than work address, it can be quite far - many poor people have a hour+ commute to their polling station from work.

[noel c.]

Y-22,

“The vote totals changed by 667 votes but the margin didn't change by 6,000 votes as you claimed. Same in Pennsylvania, the 83,000 vote margin changed by about 200 votes.”

Fair, I misinterpreted the numbers.
 
“I agree, and in all three of those cases the original margin of victory was less than 500. Not a great precident when you're trying to make up a 12,000+ vote differential.”

Nonetheless, a rebuttal of your statement. Recounts do matter.

“Illegality that was upheld by the state's supreme court? How is that illegality or corruption.”

As a member of the Party that has relied upon U.S. Supreme Court decisions to overturn State courts since the 1960’s, in reversing legislated law, I am surprised that you would ask.

What will be your position on Supreme Court “legality” when it begins overturning State court decisions in the Amy Coney Bennett era?

”But if you/Trump aren't demonstrating fraud in the 1,000's of votes then he could go ahead and concede... “

No, voting fraud in the 1,000s is worth pursuing, and prosecuting. That would not happen if Trump conceded.

“... free up the intelligence community to meet with Biden, allow the government to release funds to Biden to begin the transition and do all those other things.“

Would you then turn a blind eye to Trump positioning the intelligence community into orchestrating a Crossfire-Hurricane reprise?

“Then you can proceed tracking down all the Trump voters in NC who listened to Trump and voted by mail then again in person and throw the book at them.“

I am a bipartisan “book thrower”.

[yossarian22c]

Y-22,

“The vote totals changed by 667 votes but the margin didn't change by 6,000 votes as you claimed. Same in Pennsylvania, the 83,000 vote margin changed by about 200 votes.”

Fair, I misinterpreted the numbers.
 
“I agree, and in all three of those cases the original margin of victory was less than 500. Not a great precident when you're trying to make up a 12,000+ vote differential.”

Nonetheless, a rebuttal of your statement. Recounts do matter.

Way to segue straight from misinterpreting data to misrepresenting me. I said no such thing. I said that recounts almost never change the outcome by more than a few hundred votes and asking for a recount shows no evidence of fraud. The data from the races you selected is evidence for my statement that recounts don't change vote totals by more than a few hundred.

“Illegality that was upheld by the state's supreme court? How is that illegality or corruption.”

As a member of the Party that has relied upon U.S. Supreme Court decisions to overturn State courts since the 1960’s, in reversing legislated law, I am surprised that you would ask.

What will be your position on Supreme Court “legality” when it begins overturning State court decisions in the Amy Coney Bennett era?

I think the court is about to embark on an era of poor decisions. Me disagreeing with the SC decisions doesn't make that decision illegal.

”But if you/Trump aren't demonstrating fraud in the 1,000's of votes then he could go ahead and concede... “

No, voting fraud in the 1,000s is worth pursuing, and prosecuting. That would not happen if Trump conceded.

Your right if voting fraud were that widespread it would be worth pursuing, and prosecuting. And that could happen with or without Trump conceding. But there is no evidence voting fraud is that widespread. Right now you're just grasping at straws to justify Trump behaving like a toddler who just lost a game and is throwing a temper tantrum and saying "I won, you cheated. Boohoo"

“... free up the intelligence community to meet with Biden, allow the government to release funds to Biden to begin the transition and do all those other things.“

Would you then turn a blind eye to Trump positioning the intelligence community into orchestrating a Crossfire-Hurricane reprise?

Has Biden or his team been meeting with Chinese and Ukrainian officials on the sly in order to get dirt on Trump? If so, then no I don't really have any problem with Wray heading up an investigation into Biden.

“Then you can proceed tracking down all the Trump voters in NC who listened to Trump and voted by mail then again in person and throw the book at them.“

I am a bipartisan “book thrower”.

Still waiting on Trump to come looking for voter fraud in NC. Wait, what's that, no lawsuits in NC, what is different about NC and all the other close states? Could it be Trump won? And Trump doesn't want there to be any investigation if he won.

[noel c.]

Y-22,

“I think the court is about to embark on an era of poor decisions. Me disagreeing with the SC decisions doesn't make that decision illegal.”

Do you believe that unconstitutional, as contrasted with “bad”, decisions exist? If so, are they legal?

“Your right if voting fraud were that widespread it would be worth pursuing, and prosecuting.“

You are diving into the circular argument again. Investigation is how voter fraud is determined.

“And that could happen with or without Trump conceding.”

It ”could”, but it wouldn’t, and you are the perfect stereotype to make that point. A priori, fraud didn’t happen, correct?

“But there is no evidence voting fraud is that widespread.”

Here we go again; you do not get to determine that.

“Right now you're just grasping at straws to justify Trump behaving like a toddler who just lost a game and is throwing a temper tantrum and saying ‘I won, you cheated. Boohoo’ “

Right now you are pretending clairvoyance. I am unabashedly delighted that this election is being subject to a proctological examination, and if it takes a toddler’s temperament to force the issue, so be it.

“Has Biden or his team been meeting with Chinese and Ukrainian officials on the sly in order to get dirt on Trump? If so, then no I don't really have any problem with Wray heading up an investigation into Biden.”

If he plans to govern, I would hope that he is talking on the “sly” with them. You are probably confused about what actually happened, right?

Are you going to respond to my question regarding Corssfire-Hurricane, specifically FISA abuse?

“Still waiting on Trump to come looking for voter fraud in NC. Wait, what's that, no lawsuits in NC, what is different about NC and all the other close states? Could it be Trump won? And Trump doesn't want there to be any investigation if he won.”

That is the difference between us, I want the fraud uncovered, and terminated.

[yossarian22c]

Y-22,

“I think the court is about to embark on an era of poor decisions. Me disagreeing with the SC decisions doesn't make that decision illegal.”

Do you believe that unconstitutional, as contrasted with “bad”, decisions exist? If so, are they legal?

By definition they are "legal." Dred Scott was a travesty of justice and immoral but by definition it was "legal." The SC gets to determine constitutional as well. I tend to treat saying their decisions are constitutional as a tautology. They can be wrong and future courts get to overrule them but after they decide until they are overruled or an amendment is passed their decisions are constitutional.

“Your right if voting fraud were that widespread it would be worth pursuing, and prosecuting.“

You are diving into the circular argument again. Investigation is how voter fraud is determined.

So now Trump is "investigating". Why's he making all those fraud claims and statements about him winning? Why are there people on the streets of Washington DC chanting 4 more years and stop the steal?

“And that could happen with or without Trump conceding.”

It ”could”, but it wouldn’t, and you are the perfect stereotype to make that point. A priori, fraud didn’t happen, correct?

“But there is no evidence voting fraud is that widespread.”

Here we go again; you do not get to determine that.

Make your case. We're 11 days out from the election. Trump has been "investigating" that whole time. How many fraudulent ballots have been found to date? Can you show any results from that investigation? I'll accept 10 fraudulent ballots found per day of investigation as a sign of progress. Can you meet that threshold?

[Aris Katsaris]

You are diving into the circular argument again. Investigation is how voter fraud is determined.

So if there has to be investigation before you conclude if there's voter fraud or not, why aren't you asking for an "investigation" on all 50 states in every elections?

Was there such an investigation in 2016? If not, are you saying that there's a 50% probability that Trump became president in 2016 due to voter fraud? If not 50%, what probability do you assign to Trump having been elected president in 2016 due to voter fraud?

Here we go again; you do not get to determine that.

Yet somehow it's fine for Trump to determine there's lots and lots of evidence?

By this point we've seen the 'evidence' that the Trump campaign had: every informed individual can determine it. And every single court that has seen the so-callled evidence, has rejected the allegations of fraud.

That is the difference between us, I want the fraud uncovered, and terminated.

And if the investigation determines there's been no fraud, I'm sure you'll say Trump owes Biden & the Democrats an apology for insisting there was. /s

[yossarian22c]

“Right now you're just grasping at straws to justify Trump behaving like a toddler who just lost a game and is throwing a temper tantrum and saying ‘I won, you cheated. Boohoo’ “

Right now you are pretending clairvoyance. I am unabashedly delighted that this election is being subject to a proctological examination, and if it takes a toddler’s temperament to force the issue, so be it.

There are other ways to investigate elections without throwing a temper tantrum and trying to cause chaos and division throughout the country.

“Has Biden or his team been meeting with Chinese and Ukrainian officials on the sly in order to get dirt on Trump? If so, then no I don't really have any problem with Wray heading up an investigation into Biden.”

If he plans to govern, I would hope that he is talking on the “sly” with them. You are probably confused about what actually happened, right?

Are you going to respond to my question regarding Corssfire-Hurricane, specifically FISA abuse?

What Trump is doing is more damaging than anything Crossfire-Hurricane did. But if Flynn doesn't lie, Trump doesn't panic and fire Comey, Cohen doesn't pay off porn stars in an illegal way, and Stone doesn't lie to congress about communicating with WikiLeaks then Crossfire-Hurricane comes to nothing and none of us probably ever hear of it.

“Still waiting on Trump to come looking for voter fraud in NC. Wait, what's that, no lawsuits in NC, what is different about NC and all the other close states? Could it be Trump won? And Trump doesn't want there to be any investigation if he won.”

That is the difference between us, I want the fraud uncovered, and terminated.

Stop trying to identify what I want or think unless I tell you directly you're not good at honestly reading and interpreting what others write.

[msquared]

In our system are you not innocent until proven guilty?  Is the election then not correct until proven corrupt? And you need evidence for an investigation? And there is no evidence.

[noel c.]

Y-22,

“By definition they are ‘legal’.

So if the Supreme Court determined that the NYT, Washington Post, Huffington Post, New Yorker Slate, Buzzfeed, and Politico must cease publication because they do not serve the public interest (general welfare), that would be, by definition, legal?

"Dred Scott was a travesty of justice and immoral but by definition it was ‘legal.’ “

By definition, the Dred Scott decision was constitutional, and therefore “legal”. Without passage of the 13th, and 14th amendment to “correct“ (make “good“ law), it would still be legal.

“The SC gets to determine constitutional as well. I tend to treat saying their decisions are constitutional as a tautology.“

I know.

“They can be wrong and future courts get to overrule them but after they decide until they are overruled or an amendment is passed their decisions are constitutional.”

Rather than Dred Scott, lets look at something that would affect you directly; what if the FBI Director decided that your brand of politics was subversive to the interests of the United States, and organized a special detail to monitor your activities, and black mail you into submission. You bring suit in the Federal court system, and the SCOTUS agrees with the FBI. Is it constitutional?

“So now Trump is ‘investigating’.”

No, his legal team is.

“Why's he making all those fraud claims and statements about him winning?“

Because he believes what he is saying.

“Why are there people on the streets of Washington DC chanting 4 more years and stop the steal?”

Because they do not trust your party.

“What Trump is doing is more damaging than anything Crossfire-Hurricane did.“

Wrong, if the State bureaucracy can be enlisted by a political entity to destroy an opponent with impunity, democracy is finished.

“But if Flynn doesn't lie, Trump doesn't panic and fire Comey, Cohen doesn't pay off porn stars in an illegal way, and Stone doesn't lie to congress about communicating with WikiLeaks then Crossfire-Hurricane comes to nothing and none of us probably ever hear of it.“

This is completely unresponsive to my question. Either you really do not understand what happened, or you don’t want to understand. Address the legality of FISA warrants obtained by the Obama FBI to surveil the Trump campaign absent a predicate.

“Stop trying to identify what I want or think unless I tell you directly you're not good at honestly reading and interpreting what others write.“

Did you just tell me that my position on voter fraud investigation was “... just grasping at straws”?

Aris,

“So if there has to be investigation before you conclude if there's voter fraud or not, why aren't you asking for an ‘investigation’ on all 50 states in every elections?“

Logistics are my only source of hesitation for pushing investigation of all fifty states. The reason that “every election” has not needed the same treatment, is that there has been a qualitative change in what Democrats are willing to do to acquire, and maintain, power. Why do you think it is going to take so long to get Y-22 to concede that subverting FISA by the Obama administration has nothing to do with Stormy Daniels?

“Was there such an investigation in 2016?”

No.

“If not, are you saying that there's a 50% probability that Trump became president in 2016 due to voter fraud?”

I would say that there was a 100% chance of voter fraud. It apparently was not enough. If you follow American politics very closely, you will note that Republicans have always been the primary advocates of voting security. That is where we see our political interests, not voting chaos.

“If not 50%, what probability do you assign to Trump having been elected president in 2016 due to voter fraud?”

Again, there was a 100% chance of fraud, and it is contrary to conservative interests to propagate, or institutionalize it. If Hilary wanted to scrutinize voting security, I would have welcomed it just like I do now.

“Yet somehow it's fine for Trump to determine there's lots and lots of evidence?“

In America, any candidate is entitled to challenge the voting results. Ask Al Gore.

“By this point we've seen the 'evidence' that the Trump campaign had: every informed individual can determine it.”

Not at “this point”, but soon enough.

“And every single court that has seen the so-callled evidence, has rejected the allegations of fraud.”

“Every court“ challenge has not been completed, and even when they are finished there remains the more serious “legal” example, the Democratic bread and butter, ballot harvesting.

“And if the investigation determines there's been no fraud... “

If any court determines there was “no fraud”, I then know that court is full of crap.

“I'm sure you'll say Trump owes Biden & the Democrats an apology for insisting there was. /s”

You would be wrong.

M²

“In our system are you not innocent until proven guilty?“

In our system, the government and its bureaucracy is always subject to audit by the people. They work for us.

“Is the election then not correct until proven corrupt?”

Only if the governed are imbecilic.

“And you need evidence for an investigation? And there is no evidence.”

No, you need suspicion to investigate, which produces evidence if evidence is to be found.

[Aris Katsaris]

“Why's he making all those fraud claims and statements about him winning?“

Because he believes what he is saying.

You seriously, honestly, think that Trump believes what he is saying?

Trump doesn't give a fart about the truth. See "Birthergate" and every other conspiracy theory he's been willing to spew.

The reason that “every election” has not needed the same treatment, is that there has been a qualitative change in what Democrats are willing to do to acquire, and maintain, power.

LOL. So much for other people supposedly doing circular reasoning. You're not saying an investigation is always needed, you're saying an investigation is needed because you decided that the Democrats are evil.

Well, I've decided then that Trump and every *censored* who voted for him is evil and suspect of voting fraud, as evidenced by how Trump admires president-for-life Putin, as evidenced by how Trump urged his voters to vote twice, as evidenced by how he said he would seek a third term as president, even though that was blatantly unconstitutional.

Trump has repeatedly proven that he'd do anything to get and maintain powers, and that he admires other people (again like Putin) who would do anything to get and maintain power -- while he's supported by blatantly neo-fascist groups who hate democracy and all it stands for.

As evidenced by the fact that you *censored* don't accept a clear democratic win by his opponent either. You're rejecting a democratic result, just because you don't like it, and allegations of fraud are bull*censored* that you yourselves don't believe in.

I would say that there was a 100% chance of voter fraud. It apparently was not enough.

Or maybe it was, and Trump became an illegitimate president because of it.

If you follow American politics very closely, you will note that Republicans have always been the primary advocates of voting security.

Nah, Republicans tend to be in favour of fewer people of color voting. They claim "security" in order to make people go through hoops before they can vote, in hopes that they won't vote at all.

I mean, you guys have really not made it a secret that you really don't want Puerto Rico becoming a state. Are you gonna claim that has anything to do with security? It has everything to do with preventing Hispanics from voting, as they mostly tend to vote Democrat.

If any court determines there was “no fraud”, I then know that court is full of crap.

"No evidence of fraud" or "No discernible fraud" if you want to be nitpicky. What if the court decides that?

[yossarian22c]

“So now Trump is ‘investigating’.”

No, his legal team is.

And the ones who haven't been laughed out of court or quit have found what?

“Why's he making all those fraud claims and statements about him winning?“

Because he believes what he is saying.

Why does he believe that? What evidence does he have to support his beliefs? Other than an ego so large and fragile it can't handle a loss.

“Why are there people on the streets of Washington DC chanting 4 more years and stop the steal?”

Because they do not trust your party.

Interesting since I'm not a member of a political party.

“What Trump is doing is more damaging than anything Crossfire-Hurricane did.“

Wrong, if the State bureaucracy can be enlisted by a political entity to destroy an opponent with impunity, democracy is finished.

Didn't seem to stop Trump from being elected the first time. Crossfire hurricane resulted in multiple guilty pleas from the Trump camp. One FBI agent pled guilty to one illegal modification of a FISA warrant. Seems like the justice system is working okay.

“But if Flynn doesn't lie, Trump doesn't panic and fire Comey, Cohen doesn't pay off porn stars in an illegal way, and Stone doesn't lie to congress about communicating with WikiLeaks then Crossfire-Hurricane comes to nothing and none of us probably ever hear of it.“

This is completely unresponsive to my question. Either you really do not understand what happened, or you don’t want to understand. Address the legality of FISA warrants obtained by the Obama FBI to surveil the Trump campaign absent a predicate.

There was a predicate. The tip about Papadopoulos bragging about Russian contacts, the Trump tower meeting with Russians, the "Russia if your listening" hack some emails for me, Stone's correspondence with hackers and wikileaks. All of that is predicate for an investigation. Did one guy cross the line on a FISA warrant? Yes. But there was plenty of predicate to look into stuff absent Carter Page.

“Stop trying to identify what I want or think unless I tell you directly you're not good at honestly reading and interpreting what others write.“

Did you just tell me that my position on voter fraud investigation was “... just grasping at straws”?

That was my opinion of how strong your position is. You keep attributing things to me that are flat out false. That I said recounts never matter, when actually what I said was recounts typically don't change more that a few hundred votes. You say I don't care about voter fraud, when I do. I made a lengthy post about what I would do to make elections more secure and how to detect all the types of fraud you are alleging.


Here's what I really want you to respond to.
How many fraudulent votes has Trump's team uncovered in 11 days of investigating?

[DonaldD]

Courts only rule on what is presented to them. To-date, they have not seen evidence of anything of note.  That doesn't mean there isn't any, it doesn't even mean there is no evidence, it just means that the evidence provided to support whatever the Trump campaign is alleging in that particular case wasn't compelling.

Nah, Republicans tend to be in favour of fewer people of color voting. They claim "security" in order to make people go through hoops before they can vote, in hopes that they won't vote at all.

QFT.

There has been found no significant evidence of widespread voter fraud that would effect state-wide or presidential elections for decades.  Not even when conservative groups do the research (see the heritage foundation, and Trump's own commission dedicated to finding same.)  Yet even in the face of that consistent lack of evidence of the existence of fraud, certain groups propose, purely for the purposes of security, of course, policies that would predominantly disenfranchise their political opponents.

And for all those saying we must investigate voter fraud!  It is important to do so!  Why do you want to avoid looking?!?!  Well, the answer is that Trump just finished investigating fraud, and that commission found diddly squat.  Should such investigations occur every 2 years, or just when Republicans need to drum up political cover for voter disenfranchisement?  Or, of course, for political theatre after losing an election?

[cherrypoptart]

"Cherry, a handful of people collecting votes in a neighborhood is much more environmentally friendly than each person driving to the polling station."

Sorry, I was thinking more along the lines of one Democrat operative could harvest thousands of ballots from apartment complexes right next to each other just by walking around while her Republican counterpart would be driving down dirt roads in the country going from one farm to the next one a mile away.

But let's unpack this a little bit to make sure I understand. So highly partisan political operatives are given thousands of ballots that just need to be filled out and that's okay because the protocols in place for ensuring there is no fraud committed with them are good enough? It seems like if we want to protect the vote we need to start with protecting the ballots.

[msquared]

So a question.

If Trump were in the lead and Biden was the one asking for all of these reviews and challenges, would you other conservative members be OK with that?  Or would you be saying Biden should concede and accept the outcome of one of the most cleanly run elections (as reported by Trumps own election security office).

That is what bugs me the most.  This claim that this is about election security when he is only doing it in states he lost.  Why not states he won?  None of them had changes in election rules?  None of them have ever had any election fraud in the past?

The "civic duty" to protect the election process rings hollow when you truthfully look at what he is doing.

[cherrypoptart]

As usual, Ann Coulter nails it. 

https://anncoulter.com/2020/11/11/the-democrats-guide-to-losing-gracefully/

Democrats often have a big problem accepting the results of elections when they lose.

"... Gore contested the election until Dec. 13, the day after the Supreme Court called off the endless recounts (in only certain Florida counties) demanded by Gore."

It seems like fair play would demand that Democrats at least wait until Dec. 13th before they demand Trump's concession.

That seems like a pretty good date to me too. Unless things change significantly and the needle on evidence moves before then, that would be a good time to seriously consider a Trump concession. Until then, history is in Trump's favor, at least as far as Democrats refusing to concede.

As far as a recount everywhere, yeah, that was kind of the problem Gore had with only asking for recounts in cherry-picked places. I wouldn't be opposed to all the i's being dotted and the t's being crossed just to make sure everything everywhere is on the up and up.

[noel c.]

Aris,

“You seriously, honestly, think that Trump believes what he is saying?“

Yes, and I am surprised that you do not. With his sense of self, how could he not believe what he is saying?

“Trump doesn't give a fart about the truth. See ‘Birthergate’ and every other conspiracy theory he's been willing to spew.“

He thought that Ted Cruz’s farther was a communist Castro disciple too, because he saw it in the Enquirer.

“LOL. So much for other people supposedly doing circular reasoning. You're not saying an investigation is always needed, you're saying an investigation is needed because you decided that the Democrats are evil.“

I am saying that they are not trustworthy.  That is a predictable consequence arising from a political perspective that rests, for example, in a presumption that the Supreme Court is right because they have the power to declare themselves right.

“Well, I've decided then that Trump and every *censored* who voted for him is evil and suspect of voting fraud, as evidenced by how Trump admires president-for-life Putin, as evidenced by how Trump urged his voters to vote twice, as evidenced by how he said he would seek a third term as president, even though that was blatantly unconstitutional.“

Objectively “unconstitutional” or expediently unconstitutional? If you ever run for public office, I encourage you to act on your suspicions.

“Trump has repeatedly proven that he'd do anything to get and maintain powers, and that he admires other people (again like Putin) who would do anything to get and maintain power -- while he's supported by blatantly neo-fascist groups who hate democracy and all it stands for.“

No, Trump is not fascist, but he is authoritarian.

“As evidenced by the fact that you *censored* don't accept a clear democratic win by his opponent either. You're rejecting a democratic result, just because you don't like it, and allegations of fraud are bull*censored* that you yourselves don't believe in.“

I feel you Aris, but you do not understand conservatives, and you don’t have to.

“As evidenced by the fact that you *censored* don't accept a clear democratic win by his opponent either.”

Due process is not a foreign concept in Greece, is it?

“You're rejecting a democratic result, just because you don't like it, and allegations of fraud are bull*censored* that you yourselves don't believe in.”

Wow, you are strangely invested in America for someone who despises half of its citizens.

“Or maybe it was, and Trump became an illegitimate president because of it.”

Like I said...

“Nah, Republicans tend to be in favour of fewer people of color voting. They claim "security" in order to make people go through hoops before they can vote, in hopes that they won't vote at all.“

When this whole democracy thing started (about the same time as the Sophists) in your neighborhood, was it a good thing, what were the voting requirements, and was political dissent encouraged?

“I mean, you guys have really not made it a secret that you really don't want Puerto Rico becoming a state. Are you gonna claim that has anything to do with security? It has everything to do with preventing Hispanics from voting, as they mostly tend to vote Democrat.“

Would you be in favor of naturalizing Turks on a massive scale?

“ ‘No evidence of fraud’ or ‘No discernible fraud’ if you want to be nitpicky. What if the court decides that?”

If a court decides that, there has been an investigation justifying that conclusion, we accept it within a democracy, human foibles allowed.

Y-22,

“Interesting since I'm not a member of a political party.”

Yes, and Msquared is conservative.

“Didn't seem to stop Trump from being elected the first time.”

Yes, that surprised everybody, including Trump I think.

“Crossfire hurricane resulted in multiple guilty pleas from the Trump camp. One FBI agent pled guilty to one illegal modification of a FISA warrant. Seems like the justice system is working okay.”

That “... one illegal warrant” was renewed three times to perpetuate a farce investigation. And there you have it, your sitting President can conspire (literally) against an opposing parties’ candidate for president, and you are okay with it. Is anyone else on this board signing on to similar treatment of Biden?

”There was a predicate. The tip about Papadopoulos bragging about Russian contacts... “

No, and even Andrew McCabe said that without the Steele “dossier” no FISA warrant would have been issued. As for Papadopoulos;

“The Strzok EC quotes verbatim an email authored by Downer. In it, Downer claims Papadopoulos ‘suggested’ to him that the Trump team had received ‘some kind of suggestion’ of assistance from Russia regarding information damaging to Hillary Clinton and President Obama. In other words, a suggestion of a suggestion.“

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/white-house/499586-new-fbi-document-confirms-the-trump-campaign-was-investigated-without%3famp

“... the Trump tower meeting with Russians, the "Russia if your listening" hack some emails for me, Stone's correspondence with hackers and wikileaks. All of that is predicate for an investigation. Did one guy cross the line on a FISA warrant? Yes. But there was plenty of predicate to look into stuff absent Carter Page.”

Not according to the James Comey, the DOJ Inspector General Horowitz, or FISA Judge Rosemary Collyer. :

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/12/17/judge-fbi-surveillance-applications-086709

I actually liked Trump’s public request for HRC emails from Russia. If our FBI could not deliver, use foreign intelligence.

Do you remember what it it was on Hillary’s illegal bathroom/government server that mortified the DNC? It was John Podesta‘s comment about kissing up to “needy latino’s”.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-10-12/john-podesta-asked-hillary-clinton-to-court-needy-latinos-in-wikileaks-email%3fcontext=amp

“That was my opinion of how strong your position is.“

Can I use that line with you in the future?

“You keep attributing things to me that are flat out false.”

Well, you are meeting the “flat out” standard with me.

“That I said recounts never matter, when actually what I said was recounts typically don't change more that a few hundred votes. You say I don't care about voter fraud, when I do. I made a lengthy post about what I would do to make elections more secure and how to detect all the types of fraud you are alleging.”

I remember that post. I have mentioned that I like your position on ballot harvesting. I wish that you could come the rest of the way.

”Here's what I really want you to respond to.
How many fraudulent votes has Trump's team uncovered in 11 days of investigating?”

1,298 investigated, and prosecuted. Cases unprosecuted are absent from the count.

[NobleHunter]

As usual, Ann Coulter nails it. 

https://anncoulter.com/2020/11/11/the-democrats-guide-to-losing-gracefully/

Democrats often have a big problem accepting the results of elections when they lose.

"... Gore contested the election until Dec. 13, the day after the Supreme Court called off the endless recounts (in only certain Florida counties) demanded by Gore."

It seems like fair play would demand that Democrats at least wait until Dec. 13th before they demand Trump's concession.

That seems like a pretty good date to me too. Unless things change significantly and the needle on evidence moves before then, that would be a good time to seriously consider a Trump concession. Until then, history is in Trump's favor, at least as far as Democrats refusing to concede.

As far as a recount everywhere, yeah, that was kind of the problem Gore had with only asking for recounts in cherry-picked places. I wouldn't be opposed to all the i's being dotted and the t's being crossed just to make sure everything everywhere is on the up and up.

Except things had quite clearly gone awry in Florida. The overall election hinged on a single state with a very small margin of victory. That's before the whole "hanging chads" thing comes into play.

There is no such ambiguity in this election. It's been clear for a week and highly suggestive for days before that.

What reason does Trump have to wait another month?

[cherrypoptart]

People asked for evidence. There was evidence in Pennsylvania that votes were set to be counted that may not have been eligible for counting because they were late. One court ruled against Trump but a higher court ruled in his favor. Scenarios like that take time to play out.