Author Topic: Election Results  (Read 37089 times)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1150 on: December 16, 2020, 07:28:10 PM »
For those Trumpist on the site who say that judges are not ruling on the on the merits, that is not quite true.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-appointed-trump-heard-case-064713769.html

A Trump appointed judge allowed the Trump team to present its case and still rejected it on it's merits. Why?

Can you provide the opinion.  Nothing publicly available agrees with your assessment that it was dismissed on the merits.  Most comments indicate the judge dismissed because of the laches doctrine. 

In this case, that pretty means, "sure the votes may have been illegally counted, but that was obviously going to be the case a few months ago and you should have sued then."  That's completely procedural and nothing to do with a substantive dismissal on the merits.

I could be wrong the opinion doesn't seem to be out there, but what was granted was a motion to dismiss, not a judgement after trial.

Quote
Because while the Trump team yells a good game in public. But when it comes time to put the evidence in front of a judge, they shut up.

I read a good chunk of the complaint - which is publicly available.  Plenty of evidence on the topics they raised.  I think you're confused about the difference between what is reported and what actually happened.

Quote
1-59. The numbers speak for themselves. One of the worst legal teams in the history of the world.

Well I do agree that DNC lawyers are far more effective.  I mean they managed to impose unConstitutional modifications to election procedures pretty much at will, but mostly what Trump's team has found is that the courts are for more interested in staying out of this through technicalities than actually considering the merits.

I mean it's amazing that standing is never a problem for the DNC before an election where there's no proof anyone would be disenfranchised, but impossible for Trump's team to establish after an election where they suffered harm.

Exactly why I said at the start, there is no remedy for election fraud.  Who ever steals the election wins period.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1151 on: December 16, 2020, 07:40:19 PM »

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1152 on: December 16, 2020, 07:47:54 PM »
And it is not always the DNC lawyers. It is the lawyers for the states in question, often Republicans who are fighting back at Trumps claims that the state elections were full of massive fraud. Try that one again.

Of course there was no judgment after trial. No one has been asking for a trial. They want a hearing and a decision, and they got one.  They have been getting them all along and they have been losing, because when it comes time to put the facts on the table in a court of law, none of the facts support them.

From page 2 of the decision

 
  With the Electoral College meeting justdays away, the Court declined to address the issues in piecemeal fashion and instead provided plaintiff with an expedited hearing on the merits of his claims. On the morning of the hearing,the parties reached agreement on a stipulated set of facts and then presented arguments to theCourt. Given the significance of the case, the Court promised, and has endeavored, to provide a prompt decision.
Having reviewed the caselaw and plaintiff’s allegations,
the Court concludes it
has jurisdiction to resolve plaintiff’s claims
, at least to the extent they rest on federal law,specifically the Electors Clause.
To the contrary, the
record shows Wisconsin’s Presidential Electors are being determined in the
very manner directed by the Legislature, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.P
laintiff’s
complaint is therefore dismissed with prejudice.
2


Sorry for the formatting, the decision on the Sribd site comes across all weird.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1153 on: December 16, 2020, 07:56:36 PM »
The conclusion on the last page
.
 
Plaintiff’s
com
 plaints about defendants’ administratio
n of the election go to the
implementation of the Wisconsin Legislature’s chosen manner of appointing Presidential Electors
,not to the manner itself. Moreover
, even if “Manner” were stretched to include plaintiff’s
 implementation objections, plaintiff has not shown a significant departure from the Wisconsin
Legislature’s chosen election scheme.
This is an
extraordinary
 case. A sitting president who did not prevail in his bid forreelection has asked for federal court help in setting aside the popular vote based on disputed issuesof election administration, issues he plainly could have raised before the vote occurred. ThisCourt has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits. In his reply brief, plaintiff
“asks that the Rule of Law be followed.”
 (Pl. Br., ECF No. 109.) It has been.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1154 on: December 16, 2020, 07:58:06 PM »
And those comments were by a Trump appointed judge.  When you pick law and order judges, you get law and order. Not toadies who will do your bidding.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1155 on: December 16, 2020, 08:37:29 PM »
Was checking out the early pages of this thread and look what I found:

Well the lines at polls here locally are longest I've seen, despite it being a blue state and one that heavily sold early voting.  Not sure how to take that

Gee, Seriati himself on November 3 witnessing and testifying with his own eyes, there was was bigger turnout than he'd ever seen!

Voter turnout in my state was up 11%.  Trump got 6% more votes.  Biden got 20% more.  Not sure on the exact number of absentee ballots, they were available to all voters, but as compared to 2016 there were 460k more absentee ballots - roughly 25% of the entire voting pool. I live in a safe blue state so until and unless the national vote becomes the controlling vote the incentive for fraud here is a bit less than it may otherwise be (of course there is routinely fraud in local elections).

Quote
Nowadays, of course, Seriati claims to believe the increase in Biden's numbers over Hillary's "odd" and supposedly an indication that there was millions of vote worth of massive fraud throughout the nation, because how can it possibly have been that he got more votes than Hillary. Even though he himself had testified to us that the lines at polls were longest than he'd ever seen!

I don't find it odd that Biden got millions more votes.  I find it odd that he got the 10's of thousands more he needed in the specific swing states where he needed them.  Honestly at this point I am convinced there was mail in voter fraud.  Biden is illegitimate.

It makes no difference.  This country has no ability to unwind a result at this scale and almost no ability to even detect it.  After this, where it's been proven that cheating will win you the White House, it's pretty much open season on our electoral process until we have a generational reform process.

Quote
Chew on that, people.

How about they chew on the idea that you don't care if the election is fraudulent.  You already know that the DNC eliminated anti-fraud protections.  We all now know that the way they did it - not through the legislatures - is a literal and direct violation of the Constitution, that apparently no one has standing to challenge.  I have long suspected wide spread mail in ballot fraud (and the risk of that fraud is exactly what the last bipartisan Congressional commission to look into it identified as the single greatest fraud risk in our elections).

We all know that the media is openly covering up fraud and criminality for the Bidens. Openly covering up Biden's intended policy positions because they may "cost him votes" - gee normally, wouldn't discussing policies so that voters can make an informed choice be their job?

We all know the media routinely lies about the existence of voter fraud.  Apparently, telling people that it really does occur may be too confusing a message, as people may then ask how often it occurs.  So the media tells them it never occurs, there's never any proof.  Yet there are thousands of such events documented every year on a microscale.  And there's no good way to catch it on a macro scale.

How exactly - and I mean exactly - do you catch out fraud where absentee ballots are illegally approved when they are deficient on their face?  How do you correct for a situation where the law charges a clerk with matching a signature to 2 other specific signatures on file and rejecting the ballot if all three don't match, when they were ordered to only compare it to one signature and only permitted to reject it if they raised the issue to 2 other reviewers and 1 of them agreed to reject as well (and then they had to sign their name to the rejection)?  You can't fix that process, and there is no question it led to a significant increase in illegal votes that were counted in the election.

When the margin of victory in virtually every swing state is smaller than the votes that were illegally counted its an open and shut case, before you even consider if actual fraud (of which there are also indicators) contributed as well.

The amazing part about a conspiracy implemented in such a manner is that cheating through illegally modifying the rules doesn't require any of the clerks involved to be complicit.  So the idea that a conspiracy of hundreds needs to be involved is a fake strawman point.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1156 on: December 16, 2020, 08:40:24 PM »
Quote
Most comments indicate the judge dismissed because of the laches doctrine.

I think it would behoove you to review who commented as such, because they obviously don't know what they are talking about. :)

Looking over the ruling, I did not see any mention of laches doctrine or anything like it.  The closest I saw was the Defendants claiming the plaintiff's claims are moot, which the judge specifically denied.

I would also point out the section on page 17 titled: "II.  The Plaintiff's Claims Fail on Their Merits..."  It's kinda hard to argue that the judge did not rule that the suit failed on its merits.  ;D

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1157 on: December 16, 2020, 08:48:06 PM »
Took 30 seconds clicking on the link in the article to go to National Review which had a link to the decision

Thanks that was super helpful.  He did claim to reach the merits.  It was not, however, based on a presentation of their case and facts.  Instead the parties stipulated as to the relevant facts.  He made several interesting findings.  He found Trump had standing for one, and that his claims were not barred by various procedural limitations (I leave it to others to make their own judgement as to why he did so, he seemed to me to be itching to get to write his decision "on the merits"). 

As far as the grounds, he pretty much concluded that the Electors clause means that because there was an election - that's good enough.  He then went on to conclude that even if it wasn't good enough, that the election was conducted as the legislature directed by concluding that the modifications made by officials (even ones that the Wisconsin SC seemly agreed were not done properly) were done within the authority they were delegated (not clear by the way how that could be the case for some), and ultimately that even if they weren't they were not significant.  No idea how he measured significance, certainly not with evidence, seems to be more his own opinion on that topic.

And for good measure he stuck in a footnote that the claims would have probably been limited by laches, but he wasn't going to address that because he reached his judgement on the "merits."  In a normal time and for a normal issue this would be tailor made to go through years of appeals and judgements and end up at the SC in 2022 where it gets overturned in total.  He pretty much missed on everything, his claim on standing for example while "pro-Trump" provides no actual basis to find it, it looks to me that standing largely existed in his mind because he wanted to rule on the merits.

That said, this judge did claim to have reached a decision on the merits.  But it's not true that Trump's team got to present their case because of the stipulation process.  In any event thanks for the  link.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2020, 08:50:53 PM by Seriati »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1158 on: December 16, 2020, 08:55:24 PM »
Quote
Most comments indicate the judge dismissed because of the laches doctrine.

I think it would behoove you to review who commented as such, because they obviously don't know what they are talking about. :)

Exactly why I was looking for the opinion itself.

Quote
Looking over the ruling, I did not see any mention of laches doctrine or anything like it.

Look for it in the footnotes to the first basis upon which he ruled on the merits.  Pretty much he was acting to "preserve" laches as a back up if he's overruled.

Quote
The closest I saw was the Defendants claiming the plaintiff's claims are moot, which the judge specifically denied.

I actually thought the mootness analysis was pretty good.  Of course it's a bit self evident.

Quote
I would also point out the section on page 17 titled: "II.  The Plaintiff's Claims Fail on Their Merits..."  It's kinda hard to argue that the judge did not rule that the suit failed on its merits.  ;D

I agree, reading the opinion its clear the judge claimed to rule on the merits.  It's actually kind of fascinating how willingly he ruled on what can only be described as incredibly uncertain Constitutional principals.

If this case were capable of being drug out and all the way to the SC there's no way that it survives as a judgement on the merits.  It would end up being knocked out on procedural grounds at some level of appeal instead.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1159 on: December 16, 2020, 09:13:19 PM »
Quote
I don't find it odd that Biden got millions more votes.  I find it odd that he got the 10's of thousands more he needed in the specific swing states where he needed them. 

Why you didn't find it odd that Trump got a far more targeted set of votes in the specific swing states he needed far more? Not to mention Biden didn't get  tens of thousands more votes in the specific states he needed but rather gathered more votes across a broad range of states, including ones he didn't need to win and could have been reasonably expected to lose.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1160 on: December 16, 2020, 09:34:45 PM »
So a Federal judge, appointed by Trump, got it wrong?   He "claimed" to rule on the merits.

He did. If both sides stipulate to the facts, they agree on the facts. The facts are not in question. If they were in question, the plaintiffs should not have stipulated to them.

You do not get to second guess the legal team because the decision went against your side.

Trump  lost on the facts. By his own appointed judge.

Your view that this decision would be over turned by the SC in a few years is just guess work on your part. The fact that the Trump team is 1-59 leads me to think this would hold up all the way to the SC.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1161 on: December 16, 2020, 10:51:13 PM »
Quote
Nowadays, of course, Seriati claims to believe the increase in Biden's numbers over Hillary's "odd" and supposedly an indication that there was millions of vote worth of massive fraud throughout the nation, because how can it possibly have been that he got more votes than Hillary. Even though he himself had testified to us that the lines at polls were longest than he'd ever seen!

I don't find it odd that Biden got millions more votes.  I find it odd that he got the 10's of thousands more he needed in the specific swing states where he needed them.  Honestly at this point I am convinced there was mail in voter fraud.  Biden is illegitimate.

It makes no difference.  This country has no ability to unwind a result at this scale and almost no ability to even detect it.  After this, where it's been proven that cheating will win you the White House, it's pretty much open season on our electoral process until we have a generational reform process.

Unwinding is hard, detecting 50-100k of fraudulent votes isn't that difficult.

Who voted is public record. Go to the places where you're convinced there was voter fraud. Contact 1000+ of those voters ask them one question, did you vote in November. If there is massive amounts of fraud you'll either find there are fictitious people on the rolls or you'll find people who were surprised they voted. Trump has 200 million dollars, don't tell me he couldn't fund a really in depth survey of 10k voters in all of the areas you're just sure fraud occurred in and turn up a couple hundred fraudulent votes.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1162 on: December 16, 2020, 11:06:28 PM »
Quote
I don't find it odd that Biden got millions more votes.  I find it odd that he got the 10's of thousands more he needed in the specific swing states where he needed them.

And this is what I mean when I say you speak utterly incoherent nonsense.

It'd have made much more sense to be suspecting Trump of doing (insufficient) fraud in the swing states in order to selectively overcome Biden's nationwide increase.

Also, too bad that I remember you quite well when you said you also found equally "odd" Biden's numbers in Alabama, not just in the "specific swing states" (as you're claiming now), but even in the reddest of red states. If you are backpedaling from your previous claim, do please let us know the exact reason your previous argument (about Alabama's votes) was wrong.

Why, it's as if you're not speaking an actual true opinion of yours on the matter, and you're just jumping wildly from claim to claim, just to muddle the issue. And occasionally you forget what claims you've made before.

Quote
Honestly at this point I am convinced there was mail in voter fraud.  Biden is illegitimate.

And at this point I am convinced that you're actually convinced Biden is legitimate, and are just pretending otherwise just to defend you favorite fascist in chief.

Quote
How about they chew on the idea that you don't care if the election is fraudulent.

I'm turning the accusation right back at you. You're the one who doesn't give a *censored* about if the election is fraudulent or not, in fact you would want it to be fraudulent in favour of Trump.

Quote
You already know that the DNC eliminated anti-fraud protections.

I know no such thing. I do find it amazing how they managed to supposedly eliminate such anti-fraud protections even in deep red states like Alabama where the DNC has little power.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1163 on: December 17, 2020, 12:21:06 PM »
Quote
I don't find it odd that Biden got millions more votes.  I find it odd that he got the 10's of thousands more he needed in the specific swing states where he needed them. 

Why you didn't find it odd that Trump got a far more targeted set of votes in the specific swing states he needed far more?

I did find it odd.  In fact if you go back and look I expressly stated that a massive pro Trump fraud could also explain the anomalies.  I just found it less likely because it would have had to occur in areas that the Democrats completely control.

Quote
Not to mention Biden didn't get  tens of thousands more votes in the specific states he needed but rather gathered more votes across a broad range of states, including ones he didn't need to win and could have been reasonably expected to lose.

He not only got tens of thousands of votes more in the states he needed, his supporters knew exactly how many votes he needed to flip the state because they tallied the in person first and then drug out the mail in vote count for days.  Against that backdrop, "pauses" in counts, shenanigans like in Georgia, affadavits asserting that votes were "found," or boxes of sequential votes were processed, or even implying that additional votes turned up in improbable percentages that just happened to be "enough," is pretty clear evidence that undermines confidence.

Its also helpful to remember that there is a difference between providing in court and proving in reality.  If there weren't OJ wouldn't have gone free.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1164 on: December 17, 2020, 12:33:02 PM »
Except it wasn't the Democrats who dragged out the mail-in vote. It was the GOP trying to drag things out in order to encourage of exactly the kind of wishful thinking you're indulging in. 

I'd also like to point out that the Biden was winning the election by Wednesday. So why go through with all sorts of fraud if he didn't need it to win? Especially in some place like Georgia that was a long shot and irrelevant to the outcome?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1165 on: December 17, 2020, 12:33:49 PM »
So a Federal judge, appointed by Trump, got it wrong?   He "claimed" to rule on the merits.

Yes, a federal judge appointed by Trump got it wrong.  And it looks to me like he went out of his way to do so.  If you do read that opinion again you can see exactly why its so hard to fight this.  He had to work through about a dozen ways that claim could have been kicked out of court without a decision to get to a decision on the merits.

When he did get to it, he laid out his own theory of the constitution that doesn't really match with its plain text or the limited guidance we've received on it from the supreme court.

Quote
He did. If both sides stipulate to the facts, they agree on the facts. The facts are not in question. If they were in question, the plaintiffs should not have stipulated to them.

That is what stipulation means.  Duh.  It also means that evidence of fraud was never presented or weighed because - again - this particular case was not dependent on proving fraud (which is virtually impossible for a third party to show in this system).

Quote
You do not get to second guess the legal team because the decision went against your side.

Not sure what that even means, but I'm certainly qualified enough to take a view on case.  If someone couldn't "second" guess a district court judge we wouldn't have an appeals process, yet we do have an appeals process that can lead to dozens of appeals inside a single case, and many of them result in overturning the decision.

In this case, I agree that I think the judge is wrong "on the merits," but that doesn't change that he was sloppy in other areas.

Quote
Trump  lost on the facts. By his own appointed judge.

Meh.  I can see how you'd see it that way, even if it's a poor approximation.

Quote
Your view that this decision would be over turned by the SC in a few years is just guess work on your part. The fact that the Trump team is 1-59 leads me to think this would hold up all the way to the SC.

The fact that Trump is "1-59" as you put it, when virtually all the "59" are decisions that refused to reach the merits is actually pretty convincing evidence that this case WOULD NOT hold up on the merits, but rather be dismissed on appeal for procedural grounds.  But please feel free to continue to believe what you want, nothing I can is going to change that anyway.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1166 on: December 17, 2020, 12:39:55 PM »
The complaint has been that judges are dismissing for procedural reason and not merit.  This one was done on merit. It seems you are saying he bent over backward to not dismiss for procedural reasons and that he should have?

The other option is that his reading is correct and yours is wrong. IANAL but if Trumps team had any amount of evidence for the claims they  have made, they would have made sure to put it before judges so that the facts can be brought to light.  But they have not. Every time they are told to put up or shut up, they shut up.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1167 on: December 17, 2020, 01:11:08 PM »
Quote
I don't find it odd that Biden got millions more votes.  I find it odd that he got the 10's of thousands more he needed in the specific swing states where he needed them. 

Why you didn't find it odd that Trump got a far more targeted set of votes in the specific swing states he needed far more?

I did find it odd.  In fact if you go back and look I expressly stated that a massive pro Trump fraud could also explain the anomalies.  I just found it less likely because it would have had to occur in areas that the Democrats completely control.

Why can't fraud happen in Republican controlled areas? You can't hit the same scale in Williamsport as Philadelphia. But there is a lot less scrutiny in the rural areas. Easier to put in an extra couple thousand Trump votes, hit those down ballot races that went all Republican as well. I don't think this happened but at this point its much more plausible than massive democratic fraud in a few areas that have received tons of attention and investigation. At least with Republican fraud you have the statistical evidence of deviation from the polls. For Democratic fraud you have ...? Biden won?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1168 on: December 17, 2020, 01:27:18 PM »
And Dominion joins Smartmatic in fighting back against the false claims.  Surprised it took them this long.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dominion-threatens-defamation-lawsuit-sidney-173202526.html

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1169 on: December 17, 2020, 01:30:11 PM »
And Dominion joins Smartmatic in fighting back against the false claims.  Surprised it took them this long.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dominion-threatens-defamation-lawsuit-sidney-173202526.html

They may have been waiting to see how deep a hole Trump and others would dig themselves in. I hope they and Krebs get the whole 200 million people gave to Trump to fight the election.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1170 on: December 17, 2020, 04:44:00 PM »
Unwinding is hard, detecting 50-100k of fraudulent votes isn't that difficult.

Really?  I guarantee we had more fraudulent votes than that nationwide, and far more illegal votes that may or may not have been fraudulent.  How many did you detect, and how would you do that.

How do you find which nursing home workers improperly influenced their patients votes?  Fraudulent votes. 

How do you detect which postal workers threw away ballots from people registered for the other party?  Illegal voter manipulation, which by the way is trivially easy in many states where registrations are a public record.

How do you detect fraudulent votes where the ballot request was fraudulent as well?  In GA for example they eliminated the requirement to compare the ballot signature to the original voter registration in favor of only comparing it to the ballot request - thereby ensuring that any vote harvesting group would get away with it (and we have multiple accounts of voters showing up and being told they had already voted by mail - literally evidence that such a system is present).

Quote
Who voted is public record. Go to the places where you're convinced there was voter fraud. Contact 1000+ of those voters ask them one question, did you vote in November. If there is massive amounts of fraud you'll either find there are fictitious people on the rolls or you'll find people who were surprised they voted.

If you've ever done any kind of in person survey you'd already know this, but if you tried to find 1000 voters you'd be lucky to locate even 600 with certainty.  And you'd almost certainly get many that refuse to participate.  Then you'd have no way to know if any of their votes as put through the voting machines matched their votes as they intended, as there is no way to match a tabulated result to an individual.

So sure, we could run that "study" and all we'd determine is that far more than voters than any margin of victory would be unidentifiable and that we could verify zero of their votes.

Quote
Trump has 200 million dollars, don't tell me he couldn't fund a really in depth survey of 10k voters in all of the areas you're just sure fraud occurred in and turn up a couple hundred fraudulent votes.

First, the challenges are not based on fraud, they are based on illegality.  They demonstrate that votes were counted in methods contrary to the election laws established by the legislatures.  There's a jump between that and "illegal" that the courts would have to resolve, which you can see in that opinion where the judge "concluded" that all such changes were effectively made through the means the legislature established (as a matter of fact, that appears to be false notwithstanding his conclusion). 

But again, there's a gap between finding illegal votes and agreeing that the remedy is they should be disallowed.  Even though the legislatures expressly stated they should be disallowed, the courts are reluctant to enforce it.  Effectively, they are strongly in favor of the error of allowing illegal votes rather than risking an error in disallowing a vote that could have been made legally. 

Fraud is actually a second issue, in that illegal votes are generally illegal because they violate controls designed to have made fraud difficult.  Effectively, fraud is far far easier to accomplish and far more difficult to control or detect in an environment where those controls are lifted. 

The fact is the DNC does not care one whit about illegality or even fraud in votes, so long as they are the winner.  Perhaps the RNC is the same, but their position on requiring anti-fraud controls implies otherwise.

Maybe I'm wrong, why don't you list out the fraud protections that are reasonable, and explain how they would work (and why the DNC opposes them anyway).

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1171 on: December 17, 2020, 04:46:34 PM »
Quote
Honestly at this point I am convinced there was mail in voter fraud.  Biden is illegitimate.

Well, if you honestly believe that, then you need to send Trump money.  Lots of money.  Because who else is going to challenge the election from here on out?  Who else is going to defend the integrity of our election system?  Once that integrity is gone, and people can't trust the election system, our whole democracy is at stake.

So give as much money as you can spare.  Then a bit more.  Because Trump and his followers are the only ones anymore who will do the research to expose the mail fraud.  They are the only ones who will check the 100,000 voters that yossarian suggested at this point.  They are the only ones who will do the work of actually finding actual proof of the fraud.

You can't do it alone.  So you need to give Donald Trump your money.  For the good of the nation. 

At this point, I sincerely believe that this may be the only way to save our country.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1172 on: December 17, 2020, 05:42:28 PM »
Why can't fraud happen in Republican controlled areas?

It can, but fraud to be effective needs to maximize the votes and minimize the numbers of people involved.  Running a fraud through 2 dozen small Republican counties will automatically be orders of magnitude easier to detect than a fraud run through a single consolidated counting location in a major city.  The first involves - more likely than not - more than a hundred people that coordinated to be effective, the latter may involve less than 10, it could be accomplished by a single crew.  It's just a numbers game to add 10k votes to a voting block of 300k voters, as compared to adding it to voting blocks of 1-3 thousand a bit at a time. 

Quote
You can't hit the same scale in Williamsport as Philadelphia. But there is a lot less scrutiny in the rural areas.

Statistically there is not less scrutiny.  Most rural areas are not remotely as imbalanced statistically as those inside cities.  Some of those Philly districts (there were 300 total) had less than 10 registered Republicans (I think there something like 80-90 with less than 25 republicans).

Quote
Easier to put in an extra couple thousand Trump votes, hit those down ballot races that went all Republican as well.

It's "easy" to write a sentence saying it's easier, it's a lot harder to actual demonstrate that your sentence is true.

Quote
I don't think this happened but at this point its much more plausible than massive democratic fraud in a few areas that have received tons of attention and investigation.

That's not what "plausible" means.  It means that you demonstrate that it would somehow be easier to have accomplished.  Yet you'd be doing that against the actual history of voter fraud - which is overwhelmingly connected to the big voter pools and single party control that exists in cities, and absurdly against the reality of what it would take - a small well placed group - versus dozens of coordinated groups.  But maybe I'm wrong, why don't you make a "plausible" explanation of the vectors involved.

No, Trump's most likely source of that kind of fraud would have been a manipulation of something like the voting machines.  But then why would it be the DNC that is resisting anyone looking at the voting machines to such an extent?


Quote
At least with Republican fraud you have the statistical evidence of deviation from the polls. For Democratic fraud you have ...? Biden won?

Do you though?  I haven't seen you show any such deviation of Republicans.  And as far as a reality check, we have confirmation that even during a pandemic Trump rallies were  massive affairs with highly passionate attendants.  When you compare that to Biden speaking in peoiple's basements and to half empty rooms, it's something that anyone objective (of which none of us are) is going to find suspicious.  Biden got the most votes of anyone ever to run, despite being one of the most underwhelming candidates in recent memory. 

If it really happened, and it's not just a steal, it's hard to see it as anything but Trump being the most popular and anti-popular candidate of all time.  He was already a narcissist and effectively we just proved - as a nation - that everything really is all about Trump.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1173 on: December 17, 2020, 05:48:52 PM »
Unwinding is hard, detecting 50-100k of fraudulent votes isn't that difficult.

How do you find which nursing home workers improperly influenced their patients votes?  Fraudulent votes. 

You could go interview people at nursing homes with unusually high rates of return. See if any of the voters have severe dementia.

Quote
How do you detect which postal workers threw away ballots from people registered for the other party?  Illegal voter manipulation, which by the way is trivially easy in many states where registrations are a public record.

Again public records, find who requested a ballot and never voted. Go ask them if they voted.

Quote
How do you detect fraudulent votes where the ballot request was fraudulent as well?  In GA for example they eliminated the requirement to compare the ballot signature to the original voter registration in favor of only comparing it to the ballot request - thereby ensuring that any vote harvesting group would get away with it (and we have multiple accounts of voters showing up and being told they had already voted by mail - literally evidence that such a system is present).

Track down those people and ballots and make your case. Here's the place to start, the individuals should be motivated to file a complaint and you can track down their return envelopes and check for irregularities.
Quote
Quote
Who voted is public record. Go to the places where you're convinced there was voter fraud. Contact 1000+ of those voters ask them one question, did you vote in November. If there is massive amounts of fraud you'll either find there are fictitious people on the rolls or you'll find people who were surprised they voted.

If you've ever done any kind of in person survey you'd already know this, but if you tried to find 1000 voters you'd be lucky to locate even 600 with certainty.  And you'd almost certainly get many that refuse to participate.  Then you'd have no way to know if any of their votes as put through the voting machines matched their votes as they intended, as there is no way to match a tabulated result to an individual.

If all you did was call them then yes you'll have a large non response rate, go door to door to check. The response rate should be able to get large enough to detect some level of fraud. Its expensive but Trump has 200 million dollars to investigate so use it and prove that out of 10k voters you checked you found 150 that will swear they never voted.

Quote
First, the challenges are not based on fraud, they are based on illegality.  They demonstrate that votes were counted in methods contrary to the election laws established by the legislatures.  There's a jump between that and "illegal" that the courts would have to resolve, which you can see in that opinion where the judge "concluded" that all such changes were effectively made through the means the legislature established (as a matter of fact, that appears to be false notwithstanding his conclusion). 

Here's a clever move of the goalposts. Now we don't care about fraudulent votes or voters but now we're looking to see if we can find any policy or procedure announced and followed by any election officials that would allow us to disregard the votes cast by voters following the procedures prescribed by election officials. This is where you get tossed out on standing. The Trump team in Wisconsin was challenging a form that had been in use for a decade, saying all those votes should be cast out, but only in democratic leaning counties. The time for those suits was prior to the election and there were tons of them all around the country. After the election tossing out ballots that the courts had deemed legal on election day is pure crap.

Quote
The fact is the DNC does not care one whit about illegality or even fraud in votes, so long as they are the winner.  Perhaps the RNC is the same, but their position on requiring anti-fraud controls implies otherwise.

Maybe I'm wrong, why don't you list out the fraud protections that are reasonable, and explain how they would work (and why the DNC opposes them anyway).

The RNC doesn't care about anti-fraud measures. They support voter suppression measures and call them anti-fraud. I posted weeks ago about what I would support for anti-fraud in elections. It didn't generate much discussion.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1174 on: December 17, 2020, 05:57:13 PM »
Quote
Honestly at this point I am convinced there was mail in voter fraud.  Biden is illegitimate.

Well, if you honestly believe that, then you need to send Trump money.  Lots of money.  Because who else is going to challenge the election from here on out?

Why?  There's never been any chance of overturning a stolen election.  Our rules only let very narrow things occur here for the very specific reason that it's NEVER BEEN in any POLICIAN'S INTEREST to create systemic controls that could operate to undermine their own legitimacy.

Quote
Who else is going to defend the integrity of our election system?  Once that integrity is gone, and people can't trust the election system, our whole democracy is at stake.

The integrity of the electoral process is gone, and no one is going to do anything meaningful to get it back.  Instead the left is going to increase the rate at which they undermine it.  They don't believe in actual Democracy because they honestly can't believe that their side may be unpopular.  If Democrats lose an election its proof that the voters that are wrong, not that the the Democrats, are.  If they win by even just one vote (even if they got thousands of fraudulent votes) then it is  an absolute mandate to do anything they want, even the things they lied about wanting to do to get elected.  I mean honestly, this is not a mandate election, it's clear we have a divided country, but if they get those 2 Senate seats they've already said they're going to make massive structural changes.

They are both cynical and narcissistic, and it is hard to respect anyone that agrees with the kind of actions they are proposing.  A divided election should represent a call for the middle to stand up, but all it does is increase extremism in an effort to permanently lock their own team into power.

Quote
Because Trump and his followers are the only ones anymore who will do the research to expose the mail fraud.

No one can catch mail fraud and prove it at scale.  It can not be done.  The evidence that is required is deliberately secret and often destroyed.

Congratulations on establishing and defending a system where fraud is easy to accomplish and nearly impossible to prove.  I guess you just believe your side will always control the final result, or if they don't it will then be proof of a fraud.

The DNC doesn't believe in democracy, they don't believe in informed voters, they don't believe in basic civil rights, they should change their name to remove the idea of democracy from it.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1175 on: December 17, 2020, 06:10:53 PM »
No one can catch mail fraud and prove it at scale.  It can not be done.  The evidence that is required is deliberately secret and often destroyed.
So you don't have evidence that any widespread fraud occurred.  Gotcha.  Yet you are so convinced that it happened - it's not like you are concerned that maybe it did, or suspect that it probably did because, I don't know, Biden wasn't your cup of tea - you are absolutely, adamantly convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt - there was fraud, and Biden is illegitimate.

Think about that.  You admittedly have no evidence, yet you are absolutely convinced that there was fraud.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1176 on: December 17, 2020, 06:17:59 PM »
So, IOW, Seriati, you either don't believe what you are saying or you don't give a hoot about our democracy. :P

"No one can catch mail fraud and prove it at scale?"  That is an incredibly stupid and cynical thing to say.  And you don't even want to try, do you?  Because the Democratic Machine is perfect, isn't it, and there is no way they'd leave a credible trace.  ;D

You haven't heard of turncoats?  You don't think anyone involved in this might not have left their cell phone on during the planning stage of during the actual implementation?  You don't think maybe one of them kept a bunch of these fraudulent ballots are proof?  You don't think that maybe one of the people involved might change their minds about doing something illegal?  ::)

You think all the safeguards that the States have enacted to try to prevent voter fraud are completely useless for mail-in ballots?  There couldn't possibly be a discrepancy, or a few thousand, to be found?  That there is no way to show there the actual fraud?

You're just being lazy.  You just don't want to put forth the effort to prove your contention.  You'd rather be wrong and declare one of the most scrutinized elections in history to be completely fraudulent than to lift a finger to prove it.  You'd rather watch our whole system of elections do down the toilet based on a lie from a known liar who cares more about himself and his pocketbook than this great nation of ours, than to put down some money where you mouth is and actually do some good for this nation, if only to show that you are utterly, completely wrong.

You just like playing with the numbers and making grand statements about entire parties.  You just like thinking you are so much smarter and superior to all those in charge of elections, even Republicans in charge of elections, who knows there was fraud when they tell you there wasn't.  You know better than Bill Barr and everyone else. You're so much smarter, you don't need to back up your convictions, because everyone else is so dumb they would never be able to prove what you already know.

It's people like you who are going to bring this country down.  Who "know" what "really" happened, but can't prove it, can't be bother to try to prove it, can't even be bothered to give money to someone to try to actually prove it.  Just give up on our nation, or just try to bring it down, because it can't be saved anyway.   >:(

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1177 on: December 17, 2020, 06:20:31 PM »
Quote
The integrity of the electoral process is gone, and no one is going to do anything meaningful to get it back.  Instead the left is going to increase the rate at which they undermine it.  They don't believe in actual Democracy because they honestly can't believe that their side may be unpopular.  If Democrats lose an election its proof that the voters that are wrong, not that the the Democrats, are.  If they win by even just one vote (even if they got thousands of fraudulent votes) then it is  an absolute mandate to do anything they want, even the things they lied about wanting to do to get elected.  I mean honestly, this is not a mandate election, it's clear we have a divided country, but if they get those 2 Senate seats they've already said they're going to make massive structural changes.

No one can catch mail fraud and prove it at scale.  It can not be done.  The evidence that is required is deliberately secret and often destroyed.

You have devoured your own tail. 

Trumpism has created the thing it feared but will never take responsibility.  (Not surprising as its foundation is F.E.A.R. - False Evidence (not even) Appearing Real) . 
Without any proof it has been decided,  the election process has no integrity. The only proof that matters, my man has lost even though everything before the election pointed towards him losing.
Never wondering if Trumps better then expected results could be fraud....

A man who prides himself on logic and reason of his arguments has thrown his reason away and stands on nothing.
No if the integrity is in question you and those that follow Trump as if a god have done it. 
Shame on you

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1178 on: December 17, 2020, 06:21:20 PM »
You could go interview people at nursing homes with unusually high rates of return. See if any of the voters have severe dementia.

Seniors vote at high rates.  How exactly is the testimony of a person with severe dementia proof of anything?  Last I checked they don't remove dementia patients from the voter roles, yet there's no way to prove that their vote went to the person they wanted to vote for (if they could even identify a person). 

We've had operatives admit that they use orderlies to coerce votes from nursing home patients.  This isn't speculative.

Other people have gotten voters to sign a ballot the first person completed in exchanges for minor payments or food (also voter fraud), how do you show it changed the course of an election?  We catch that every single election, and more people will admit to voting in that manner than you'd believe, yet they don't know the name of the operative that did it.

Quote
Quote
How do you detect which postal workers threw away ballots from people registered for the other party?  Illegal voter manipulation, which by the way is trivially easy in many states where registrations are a public record.

Again public records, find who requested a ballot and never voted. Go ask them if they voted.

Which proves what?  Every single time you could claim - rightly - that there is no way to prove there was an intentional act.  With enough data and time you could identify carriers that have unusually high "default" rates on a route, but unless election officials do an investigation there is no recourse.  How much incentive do you think DNC officials that control an election have in doing an exhaustive search to find postal carriers that have an "off" statistical anomaly in the number of returned ballots that correllates to the party of the voter?  If you found a carrier that had a return rate of 40% for Republicans and 75% for Democrats, when the local average was 50%/55% did you prove something?

Commit to exactly what you accept as proof of fraud.

Quote
Quote
How do you detect fraudulent votes where the ballot request was fraudulent as well?  In GA for example they eliminated the requirement to compare the ballot signature to the original voter registration in favor of only comparing it to the ballot request - thereby ensuring that any vote harvesting group would get away with it (and we have multiple accounts of voters showing up and being told they had already voted by mail - literally evidence that such a system is present).

Track down those people and ballots and make your case. Here's the place to start, the individuals should be motivated to file a complaint and you can track down their return envelopes and check for irregularities.

Your response doesn't make sense.  The GA rule change resulted in separation of ballots from envelopes without the required checks being completed.  There's no way to unscramble that egg.  You'll note that GA refused to do a signature audit until after the results were certified. 

Do you agree that GA should flip if the number of ballots where the signature on the envelope matches the
signature on the ballot request but not the signature on file exceeds Biden's margin?

Quote
If all you did was call them then yes you'll have a large non response rate, go door to door to check. The response rate should be able to get large enough to detect some level of fraud. Its expensive but Trump has 200 million dollars to investigate so use it and prove that out of 10k voters you checked you found 150 that will swear they never voted.

So you have not done such a survey.  The response rate I was discussing was for a door to door study with multiple contact attempts.  You will never get to the number of responses it would require to establish certainty, no matter how you follow up. 

If you agreed that such a result itself is some kind of proof that the vote was illegitimate (how could these individuals have been reachable to vote if they can't be reached) then we could discuss it, but we already know the answer.  The DNC has fought repeatedly to prevent the removal of voters from the voting roles when they are not capable of being located at their registered address, even with diligence.

Quote
Here's a clever move of the goalposts.

Its not moving goal posts its another game.  Illegal votes, by the laws of every state are not permitted to be counted.  Yet, we had hundreds of thousands of votes that could be viewed as illegal under the laws of those states counted.

That's separate than fraud, and it's largely unarguable that it happened if you agree with the Constitutional interpretation in question.

Quote
Now we don't care about fraudulent votes or voters but now we're looking to see if we can find any policy or procedure announced and followed by any election officials that would allow us to disregard the votes cast by voters following the procedures prescribed by election officials. This is where you get tossed out on standing. The Trump team in Wisconsin was challenging a form that had been in use for a decade, saying all those votes should be cast out, but only in democratic leaning counties. The time for those suits was prior to the election and there were tons of them all around the country. After the election tossing out ballots that the courts had deemed legal on election day is pure crap.

And honestly that's partially a fair point.  However, it discounts what you never paid attention to, there were literally thousands of law suits filed prior to the election (and and overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of them where by the DNC and it's partisans) to modify the election rules.  You hear about them when they act to change the congressional districts, but you ignored them while they systematically trimmed anti-fraud protections one piece at a time from the laws.  And lest you jump to the idea that they were "illegal" rules, you'd be wrong, they weren't illegal rules.  Sometimes the changes were absolutely arbitrary, like the PA SC determining that the express rule that ballots had to be received by a specific time on election day really meant they could be received up to 3 days later with or without a valid post mark.  That was purely their preference.

Other times they caused friendly settlements with DNC AGs that "bound" their states to changes in the electoral laws that their legislature had considered and rejected.  It's hard to understand how that was even "plausibly" constitutional.

Quote
The RNC doesn't care about anti-fraud measures. They support voter suppression measures and call them anti-fraud. I posted weeks ago about what I would support for anti-fraud in elections. It didn't generate much discussion.

It's fun that you just repeat talking points.  There's no evidence (for real this time) that anti-fraud measures have disenfranchised any legal voters.  Yet you pretend to have the moral high ground from protecting "no one" to create systems that let thousands of illegal voters get away with it.

Democrats are masters of rationalization.  Since they always have to believe they are the good guys, they'll buy in and publish completely false statements that sound plausible.

So prove it.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1179 on: December 17, 2020, 06:23:27 PM »
Quote
Democrats are masters of rationalization.  Since they always have to believe they are the good guys, they'll buy in and publish completely false statements that sound plausible.

Projection much?


Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1180 on: December 17, 2020, 06:31:10 PM »
No one can catch mail fraud and prove it at scale.  It can not be done.  The evidence that is required is deliberately secret and often destroyed.
So you don't have evidence that any widespread fraud occurred.  Gotcha.  Yet you are so convinced that it happened - it's not like you are concerned that maybe it did, or suspect that it probably did because, I don't know, Biden wasn't your cup of tea - you are absolutely, adamantly convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt - there was fraud, and Biden is illegitimate.

Think about that.  You admittedly have no evidence, yet you are absolutely convinced that there was fraud.

I have no proof, and by that I mean that can be presented in court to establish the scale of fraud necessary (which will never be enough); I don't agree that we have no evidence.  We have massive amounts of evidence.

You're playing a weird game based on sleight of hand.  Again, by your conception OJ really didn't do it, when everyone knows he did and that it just wasn't proven in court.

There is literally no question at all that the DNC operatives went to extremely great lengths to undermine anti-fraud protections on a massive scale.  There's no question that DNC operatives have historically engaged in illegal and quazi-legal vote harvesting schemes.  There's no question that the incentive to cheat is massive and the ability to detect it is minor.

Against that backdrop and the things we seen that did occur, there's no question in my mind that fraud influenced this election.  You're ignoring reality and the evidence if disagree. 

You could take a position that notwithstanding the fraud you don't believe it influenced the outcome.  But to be principled in doing so you'd have to back efforts to detect that fraud.  But you've revealed yourself with your triumphant denialism.  You literally don't care that there was fraud and can't even admit (out loud, I have no idea whether you admit it to yourself) that it occurred because you're afraid that it did create the outcome you wanted and are terrified that investigating it will change the results.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1181 on: December 17, 2020, 06:38:52 PM »
There is literally no question at all that the DNC operatives went to extremely great lengths to undermine anti-fraud protections on a massive scale.  There's no question that DNC operatives have historically engaged in illegal and quazi-legal vote harvesting schemes.  There's no question that the incentive to cheat is massive and the ability to detect it is minor.
This is all quite disputed, actually.  That you believe otherwise is telling.

There is actually no evidence that votes appeared after election day, outside of the late arriving mail in ballots; and the mail-in and dropped-off ballots counted on election day taken with the in-person ballots in all cases matched the eventual vote counts, with only trivial discrepancies.  That you believe that, somehow, Democrats manufactured ballots afterwards runs up against the ballot counting done prior to the vote counting on election day. 

Quote
Against that backdrop and the things we seen that did occur, there's no question in my mind that fraud influenced this election.  You're ignoring reality and the evidence if disagree. 

wmLambert, have you highjacked Serial's account?

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1182 on: December 17, 2020, 08:00:09 PM »
If they win by even just one vote (even if they got thousands of fraudulent votes) then it is  an absolute mandate to do anything they want, even the things they lied about wanting to do to get elected.

How strange, I've heard people accuse the Republicans of the exact same thing. Namely that when Republicans get elected they usurp 100% of the power, but when they don't get elected they demand nonetheless at least 50% of the power.

Quote
No one can catch mail fraud and prove it at scale.  It can not be done.  The evidence that is required is deliberately secret and often destroyed.

Well, thankfully, Donald Trump & his pals are actually accusing not mail fraud primarily, but rather Dominion instead. Any thoughts on that?

You also have the secret info from the supposed raid in Frankfurt and Spain when the DoD battled CIA mercenaries, you should ask wmLambert about them, and why we've not heard more of that.

Quote
Congratulations on establishing and defending a system where fraud is easy to accomplish and nearly impossible to prove.

And yet for some reason Donald Trump & his cultist say they have lots and lots of proof, and the evil corrupt democratic judges wrongfully dismissed them. And seemingly Barr (which you'd previously very recently praised) is now also part of the corrupt democratic establishment since Barr said there was no evidence of systematic fraud.

What is it? Is the fraud nearly impossible to prove as you say, which means Donald Trump doesn't have any proof, and he's been lying when he's been saying he has?

Has your opinion of Barr changed, for that matter?

Also if mail vote fraud is so amazingly successful, why did the Democrats need to do all the other types of fraud Republicans have been accusing them of doing?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1183 on: December 17, 2020, 10:22:12 PM »
It's fun that you just repeat talking points.  There's no evidence (for real this time) that anti-fraud measures have disenfranchised any legal voters.  Yet you pretend to have the moral high ground from protecting "no one" to create systems that let thousands of illegal voters get away with it.

Democrats are masters of rationalization.  Since they always have to believe they are the good guys, they'll buy in and publish completely false statements that sound plausible.

So prove it.
Facts on photo ID.
Quote
11% of U.S. citizens – or more than 21 million Americans don't have photo ID
Quote
The combined cost of document fees, travel expenses and waiting time are estimated to range from $75 to $175.

Signature verification by amateurs is a crap shoot.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/signature-matching-is-the-phrenology-of-elections/616790/
Quote
The answer, it turned out, was that Mangeni’s signature on the ballot didn’t match the one he used when he registered to vote. Ohio, like 30 other states, uses signature matching as a fraud-prevention measure.
Quote
A political scientist at Carroll College, working on behalf of plaintiffs challenging Ohio’s signature-matching law, found that 97 percent of rejected signatures are likely to be authentic—or, for every invalid ballot, 32 valid ones are thrown out.

So photo ID and signature verification. One makes voting much more difficult for 11% of the population. The other disenfranchises tons of people because someone on the election staff thought the signatures looked different.

Republicans on the board of elections in my state approved voting machines for use in the state that don't create a human readable paper audit. They voted with the one independent on the commission to override the objections of the democrats that there should be a way to audit something other than the machine data and code after the elections.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1184 on: December 17, 2020, 10:44:05 PM »
Quote
Again public records, find who requested a ballot and never voted. Go ask them if they voted.

Which proves what?  Every single time you could claim - rightly - that there is no way to prove there was an intentional act.  With enough data and time you could identify carriers that have unusually high "default" rates on a route, but unless election officials do an investigation there is no recourse.

I've already admitted that with the complete lack of evidence you have that there won't be enough evidence of fraud and knowing who it benefitted for the election to be overturned. What is entirely possible with $200 million dollars and using only public records is to go out and prove that there was a lot of fraud. If you find a route where 90% of Republican ballots were lost and only 10% of Democratic ballots were lost then you've shown something.

Trump has $200 million dollars, go out and find all these lost ballots; find all these people who are surprised they are registered to vote and voted; find evidence of the crime even if you can't get the evidence to prove it was all orchestrated by Soros and the Clinton Foundation. Show there was a crime, figure out as much about how it operated as possible then push for state laws to prevent it from happening in the future. Trump isn't going to do this, it doesn't benefit him. But you keep saying finding evidence of this is impossible. Its not, you do have to go look but it is 100% possible. Tracking down people who requested ballots but didn't have a vote counted is the low hanging fruit, try to figure out what happened in those cases.

At the very least you can prove a crime was committed or at least give strong evidence that a crime was committed. Without showing that baseline I'm not sure why you think we should all take your word that there was a crime, it was huge, and it was entirely perpetuated by the Democrats therefore Biden is illegitimate.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1185 on: December 17, 2020, 10:51:31 PM »
No longer any lack of evidence. Sidney Powell's "Kracken" has made it to the SCOTUS docket: https://www.thedailyfodder.com/2020/12/breaking-supreme-court-kraken-has-hit.html

Quote
...The Lawsuit states:

    15. The Interim Report shows multiple grave problems with the accuracy and vulnerability to hacking and evidence destruction of the Dominion Voting Systems (“Dominion”) machines used in Antrim County, Michigan. The report is relevant to each of the Related Cases because each of the states in question uses Dominion equipment. The Interim Report vindicates the lengthy opinion and order of Judge Amy Totenberg in Curling v. Raffensperger, 2020 WL 5994029 (N.D. Ga. 10/11/20), which found “extreme” and unacceptable security risks in the Dominion system. Compelling evidence and expert analyses show convincingly that the results of the Dominion system cannot be trusted and should not have been certified.

    16. The findings in the Interim Report are consistent with the expert testimony provided by Mr. Ramsland regarding Dominion’s vote manipulation in the Petitioners’ November 25, 2020 complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (the “District Court”) (R 450; 2438), and with his testimony in the Related Cases. Mr. Ramsland concluded in the Georgia case that, for the State of Georgia, “at least 96,000 mail-in ballots were fraudulently cast,” and “136,098 ballots were illegally counted as result of improper manipulation of the Dominion software,” id., each of which is several times larger than former VicePresident [sic] Biden’s margin of victory in Georgia (10,457 votes). Similar anomalies exist in the Related Cases. Among other things, the Complaints in the trial courts and the Petitions to this Court in each of the Related Cases all seek prospective injunctive relief requiring a similar forensic audit of Dominion voting machines. 

    17. The Coffee County, Georgia Board of Registration and Elections refused to certify the machine recount election returns on their Dominion systems “given its inability to repeatably duplicate creditable election results.” The results of the machine recount report were internally inconsistent and could not be reconciled and were inconsistent with both the election night count and the hand audit.7 The Coffee County BRE analysis confirms the findings of the Interim Report, cited above, that ballots going to adjudication can be changed on a wholesale basis by the operator with no oversight, controls or accountability, an extremely serious vulnerability.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1186 on: December 17, 2020, 11:00:18 PM »
Why can't fraud happen in Republican controlled areas?

It can, but fraud to be effective needs to maximize the votes and minimize the numbers of people involved.  Running a fraud through 2 dozen small Republican counties will automatically be orders of magnitude easier to detect than a fraud run through a single consolidated counting location in a major city.  The first involves - more likely than not - more than a hundred people that coordinated to be effective, the latter may involve less than 10, it could be accomplished by a single crew.  It's just a numbers game to add 10k votes to a voting block of 300k voters, as compared to adding it to voting blocks of 1-3 thousand a bit at a time. 

The small counties don't have to organize with each other. There are going to be fewer professional staff, media, and cameras around watching everything that is done. More people know each other well and know who and know a potential district or facility they could slip in a couple hundred votes. They couldn't run 100k ballots but if cheating is as easy as you say they could bump their numbers by 5% for Trump and Republicans. That's a better explanation for matching the polling to the election results than massive DNC voter fraud carried out with the media, observers, and cameras watching every step of the process.


And this is what we see in Iowa.
Quote
Democratic Rep. Abby Finkenauer lost her reelection bid in the eastern part of the state as Trump bolstered his margins in rural areas like Buchanan County just west of Dubuque. Trump won the rural county by 15 percentage points in 2016. That margin jumped to 21 percentage points this year.



Quote
No, Trump's most likely source of that kind of fraud would have been a manipulation of something like the voting machines.  But then why would it be the DNC that is resisting anyone looking at the voting machines to such an extent?

Quote
At least with Republican fraud you have the statistical evidence of deviation from the polls. For Democratic fraud you have ...? Biden won?

Do you though?  I haven't seen you show any such deviation of Republicans.

Trump and the Republicans outperformed the polls, particularly in the swing states and swing districts. I thought this was pretty common knowledge. Want me to dig up the numbers?

Quote
If it really happened, and it's not just a steal, it's hard to see it as anything but Trump being the most popular and anti-popular candidate of all time.  He was already a narcissist and effectively we just proved - as a nation - that everything really is all about Trump.

I would agree to Trump being the most loved and hated candidate in modern history.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1187 on: December 17, 2020, 11:05:45 PM »
No longer any lack of evidence. Sidney Powell's "Kracken" has made it to the SCOTUS docket: https://www.thedailyfodder.com/2020/12/breaking-supreme-court-kraken-has-hit.html

You realize your whole quote was just Dominion voting machines (read all electronic voting machines) have security flaws.

So why did the Republicans in Georgia buy these machines?

And full disclosure, I'm not a fan of touch screen voting. But at least we had the paper audit trail and a full hand recount which recertified the vote to within a margin of error you would expect when your counting millions of ballots in any system.

And what are you expecting out of the Kraken this time? A ruling that states must invest more in election security. Because your quote showed nothing about fraud and who it may of helped during the election.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1188 on: December 18, 2020, 07:10:30 AM »
Filing a suit is not evidence, but lets see if they have fixed the typos and the falsified documents about Dominion they had submitted in earlier cases.

Also, what will you be saying when they refuse to hear this case?  Or dismiss it due to lack of real evidence?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1189 on: December 18, 2020, 11:15:01 AM »
Quote
It also has proof of at least 200,000 FRAUDULANT VOTES casted in the election.

The author of Lambert's article isn't even literate.

"fraudulent"
"cast"

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1190 on: December 18, 2020, 02:21:14 PM »
I have no proof, and by that I mean that can be presented in court to establish the scale of fraud necessary (which will never be enough); I don't agree that we have no evidence.  We have massive amounts of evidence.

Barr (which you personally praised) disagreed and says you have no evidence.

Quote
Against that backdrop and the things we seen that did occur, there's no question in my mind that fraud influenced this election.  You're ignoring reality and the evidence if disagree. 

You don't even know what the word "evidence" mean.

Here's what an "evidence" E towards a hypothesis H means -- it's any event E where its presence makes the hypothesis H more likely than if it weren't true. For it to be evidence it must be that P(H|E) > P(H).

You've shown us vanishingly little E that wouldn't be just as likely to happen if "fraud influenced this election" than if fraud didn't influence it. You've shown us affidavits that would be just as easily gathered in the absence of fraud than in the presence of fraud, and thus tell us nothing about fraud whatsoever. You've given us supposed "odd" statistics that hold as well in red-state Alabama than in the swing states where you insist the fraud must have happened, and then you swing back and fro as to whether that means the numbers in the Alabama election was also fraudulent or not, depending what suits you in the moment.

Instead you've inadvertently given us a lot of evidence to the contrary. If fraud had really influenced the election, we wouldn't have the delusional among you make up stories about raids in Frankfurt and Spain -- nor about Ware County officials supposedly finding a 26% discrepancy -- nor would there be talk about discrepancies in the (non-existent) Edison County -- nor would there be talk about an Iran-China-Venezuela conspiracy.

You have about as many conflicting stories about the supposed election fraud as you have about the nature of vampires --- do they burn in sunlight (Buffy), or are they just weaker (Bram Stoker) or do they just sparkle (Twilight). Why? Well the conflicting stories about the nature of vampires are actually evidence they aren't real. Because it'd have been soon reduced to one real story if, you know, it was actually real.... There's only one truth, but many many lies. And since the core conclusion is a lie, and you don't care which particular path down that central lie you take... that kinda explains the multitude of them all.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2020, 02:25:01 PM by Aris Katsaris »

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1191 on: December 20, 2020, 02:28:49 PM »
A conservative judge in WI who has found against the Trump suits several times talks about the courage to do the right thing, not just what Trump wants.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/conservative-justice-wisconsin-says-followed-174111291.html

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1192 on: December 21, 2020, 08:59:35 AM »
So any bets on how long it will be before the next loss for the Trump legal team at the US SC? Today? Wednesday. A Christmas miracle?

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1193 on: December 21, 2020, 10:51:13 AM »

https://www.yahoo.com/news/conservative-justice-wisconsin-says-followed-174111291.html

"But Hagedorn, a member of the conservative Federalist Society, who in 2016 founded a private school that forbids same-sex relationships among its employees and students, is no longer a darling of the right. In a series of 4-3 decisions in recent months, he sided with the court’s three liberal justices to stop an effort to purge 130,000 people from the Wisconsin voter rolls, block the Green Party candidate and Kanye West from the general election presidential ballot and, on two separate occasions, reject President Donald Trump’s effort to overturn President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in Wisconsin."

These types of close split decisions are troubling though. So this judge decided to follow the law but the other 3 judges decided to not follow the law?

Is that how it always works with split decisions? The side in the majority is deciding to follow the law while those on the losing side are deciding to break the law?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1194 on: December 21, 2020, 11:04:51 AM »
Boy is that a miss reading of what the courts do.  What it means is that the court found the decision followed the law. The other judges felt the decision did not follow the law.

Would you be making the same argument if the decision went your team way?  Probably not.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1195 on: December 21, 2020, 03:07:03 PM »
Ok now Newsmax has walked back their voting fraud stories.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/newsmax-fact-checks-own-smartmatic-184711908.html

Just waiting for OAN to do so.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1196 on: December 21, 2020, 03:55:53 PM »
For some reason, I can't see this being an effective defense...

"SLANDER
SLANDER
SLANDER
SLANDER
SLANDER
SLANDER
SLANDER
SLANDER
SLANDER
SLANDER
retract

So, we're good?"

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1197 on: December 21, 2020, 04:14:30 PM »
Both sites have tried to weasel a bit.  They state that others have put forth these ideas, not them. Other people have made theses claims and they are just reporting on them.  Of course this still leaves Hannity and Ingrahm and the others out in the open since they do not work for the News Division and are really just opinion people, entertainers if you like, and do not have to follow the same rules (or any rules actually).

I wonder what the opinion people will say now that the News division is putting up these pieces.  Will running one 2 minute segment be enough?  I would expect not. The cease and desist said they needed to refute the claims at the same level they pushed them.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1198 on: December 21, 2020, 04:31:38 PM »
msquared,

Is be shocked if it isn't considered reckless disregard for the truth, which means they are still on the hook for slander.

Indeed I can't see how they can possibly avoid extreme punitive damages as well.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2020, 04:34:11 PM by LetterRip »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1199 on: December 21, 2020, 05:20:56 PM »
Why all the statements that there has been no evidence? Explain to me where signed affidavits by eyewitnesses are not evidence. We are not talking about a few activists making fake claims, but across-the political-spectrum reports of wide-spread illegalities and harassment from election officials without the power to act as they have. The Antrim county tests of the Dominion machines did show they are not accurate and their results cannot be depended upon.

Since very little real evidence has been allowed to be presented, why does anyone form intransigent opinions? I have been following nationwide vote scamming for decades, and the proof is there that it is, and has been a primary part of the Democrat strategy. There is no honest reason to deny voter ID, but that has been a core principle for a long, long time for the Democrats. I also have seen where a few GOP officials tried to imitate the Democrat vote-scamming. They usually are very poor at it, because the MSM want facts they are happy with and love to blame outliers for what is mainstream in their favored party. The affidavits say that Dominion alters the vote by 26% in documented instances. The fact that the mail-in ballots were hidden and counted in the dead of night without poll-watchers being present may not tweak Democrat smell-testers - but you know it is beyond statistiacal logic.