Author Topic: Election Results  (Read 37105 times)

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1200 on: December 21, 2020, 06:08:13 PM »
Why hasn't Trumps legal team submitted all of this wonderful evidence in any of the court cases? If it is so overwhelming, it should be front and center.  Show where evidence has not bee allowed to be presented in court.  Please link.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1201 on: December 21, 2020, 06:51:32 PM »
Wm and Serati

What do you say about Fox and Newmax showing segments that say there have been no fraud?  Now that they have been told that they will be sued for defamation if they continue?  Isn't the truth the defense in a case like that?  If they have the evidence, isn't that enough?  You would think they would welcome a court fight.

But no, they are not willing to go to court over this.  Why?  Occam's Razor again.  It is because they know what they have been saying is a lie.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1202 on: December 22, 2020, 12:00:30 AM »
Why all the statements that there has been no evidence? Explain to me where signed affidavits by eyewitnesses are not evidence.

Because every single time we've examined any of them, it has been disproven with amazing ease.

There've been signed affidavits, in fact signed affidavits that were considered the ones most prominent, and mentioned specifically by Trump & Giulliani & Powell... and those same affidavits confused Michigan with Minnesota, mentioned non existent counties, and gave numbers that didn't match with reality.

So ignore the ones with obvious nonsense and lies, and what are the rest? I gather there are also affidavits which testify that the process actually followed what the law stated, it's just the guy writing the affidavit didn't know the process and thus didn't realize they were actually providing evidence for the legitimacy of the election.

Others are utterly unrelated to fraud like "“I felt intimidated by union people who were staring at me," Okay, I accept this affidavit as evidence that union people may have been giving Republican dirty looks. Not evidence of fraud. Another affidavit mentions workers wearing clothes with Black Lives Matter logos. Fine, I accept the affidavit as evidence they did, but not as evidence of fraud.

So take all those false and irrelevant affidavits away, and how many are you left with? The actual number might be literally zero.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1203 on: December 22, 2020, 12:06:23 AM »
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.

None of that is in dispute.  Can you name the anti-fraud protections that DNC operatives have not tried to undermine?

The DNC's traditional ground game is to round up unlikely voters and bus them to the polls, while feeding them and promising them gifts for voting.  CA made it legal to ballot harvest, a goal that the DNC has for every state, specifically to maximize their operatives ability to get voters voting outside of the safety of a polling place.  Every form of collusion and intimidation has been shown to exist in those situations.

Given that the "world will end" or perhaps already ended when Trump was elected its not even credible to dispute the incentive.  Given that it's virtually impossible to determine that a voter was intimidated into voting, or that a "wrong" absentee ballot was discarded instead of sent in, it's not disputable that getting caught is hard.

Willful blindness is no way to live.

Quote
There is actually no evidence that votes appeared after election day, outside of the late arriving mail in ballots;

Lol, there's no evidence votes were late except for the provably late votes.  It's kind of hard to "catch" a late post stamp on votes that came in through extraordinary means.

Quote
...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.

It's so amazing that if you manage to enter a hundred thousand fraudulent ballots without proper screening the ballots afterwards will still match that count.  It's almost like it's magic that when you count the fraudulent votes 3 times, 6 times or whatever the magic ink hasn't disappear.

Lol, this such a stupid sentence.  In what way would fraudulent votes separated from any way to detect them and counted in the first count suddenly disappear in later counts?

Quote
That you believe that, somehow, Democrats manufactured ballots afterwards runs up against the ballot counting done prior to the vote counting on election day.

You telling me what I believe is rich.  You're all about strawmen and other people's talking points.

Quote
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?

You're acting more like a bot than a thinking person.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1204 on: December 22, 2020, 12:58:57 AM »
Can you name the anti-fraud protections that DNC operatives have not tried to undermine?

As an example, Ι've never heard Democrats oppose mandating a paper trail to allow for manual recounts.

And as a sidenote, though I don't assert this myself (as I've not studied the case in depth), I've heard the hypothesis that Republicans tried to rig the elections in 2012 in Ohio and was stopped only by Democrats taking it into the courts to mandate the possibility of a recount with paper trail. (and also the hypothesis that the Republicans did successfully steal the 2004 Ohio elections, and thus the presidency from Kerry)
https://washingtonspectator.org/did-an-election-day-lawsuit-stop-karl-roves-vote-rigging-scheme-in-ohio/

Lol, this such a stupid sentence.  In what way would fraudulent votes separated from any way to detect them and counted in the first count suddenly disappear in later counts?

I wonder are you forgetting or are you trying to make us forget that Trump & his cultists have been insisting that Dominion changed the numbers electronically? (Possibly projecting, if Republicans indeed used electronic switching of votes to steal Ohio and the presidency in 2004)

Yes, you specifically are not pushing that particular lie, because you know manual recounts disprove it. So is Trump a liar and slanderer for pushing it, then?
« Last Edit: December 22, 2020, 01:05:57 AM by Aris Katsaris »

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1205 on: December 22, 2020, 09:41:21 AM »
None of that is in dispute.  Can you name the anti-fraud protections that DNC operatives have not tried to undermine?

The DNC's traditional ground game is to round up unlikely voters and bus them to the polls, while feeding them and promising them gifts for voting.  CA made it legal to ballot harvest, a goal that the DNC has for every state, specifically to maximize their operatives ability to get voters voting outside of the safety of a polling place. 

Republicans have routinely supported voting machines that don't produce a human readable paper audit trail. That more than anything else tells me that don't give a crap about election security. I've already shown you the statistics on voter ID and signature verifications. They disenfranchise people well in excess of fraudulent votes stopped. Republicans routinely vote to cut down on early voting times and options. They close polling places to make sure there are long lines in the cities. You could convince me they cared about secure elections if they weren't trying to make it more difficult to vote in person as they pass all their voter ID laws and if they made sure that every voting system had a good audit trail.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1206 on: December 23, 2020, 06:11:22 PM »
Dominion is going to sue the Trump campaign for defamation.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/giuliani-told-prepare-imminent-legal-183900567.html

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1207 on: December 24, 2020, 08:39:14 AM »
A refutation of some of the statistical analysis of some of the MI results. The basic problem is that the people doing the work do not check their work on Bidens numbers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aokNwKx7gM8

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1208 on: December 24, 2020, 12:22:16 PM »
A refutation of some of the statistical analysis of some of the MI results. The basic problem is that the people doing the work do not check their work on Bidens numbers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aokNwKx7gM8

Really? YouTube?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1209 on: December 24, 2020, 12:37:09 PM »
What?  The guys video makes sense in the aspect that people can use statistics to show what ever they want especially if they have a goal to start.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1210 on: December 24, 2020, 05:07:49 PM »
I just don't like the video because it takes 15 minutes to communicate what you could read in 2.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1211 on: December 25, 2020, 09:44:19 AM »
There has not been debunking of the affidavits that witnessed illegal actions. There have been politics of personal destruction, which is a Democrat M.O.  If a person sees a poll worker cheating, then you accept the claim that that observer is biased,  but not the observed cheater.
The damning evidence in Michigan has been established - not debunked. The rebuttal from people liable for criminal prosecution if found out is accepted over whistle blowers. Please remember the Adam Schiff non-whistleblower being granted protective secrecy and sainthood.

Same thing with Dominion. The ownership is questionable. The political hatred of Trump by the owners is not. Yes, Biden's own sister is married to a Dominion official. Yes, Democrats who should be preserving evidence have been destroying it. Hillary got away with it, why shouldn't they? The few forensic checks done here has shown the Dominion system does not repeat the same numbers each time. Any variation from the required parameters is rationalized away. There is much happening now, and we'll need to watch to see if justice is served. The Democrats are  definitely not on the side of finding truth or justice.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1212 on: December 25, 2020, 09:57:46 AM »
I also note the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed citing the missed responsibility of SCOTUS: https://www.westernjournal.com/twj-exclusive-bombshell-new-legal-memo-giving-trump-supporters-hope-christmas-eve/

The unheard suit did include provable evidence of illegal vote-scamming that affected the election. Unheard means exactly that.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1213 on: December 25, 2020, 10:03:09 AM »

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1214 on: December 25, 2020, 10:17:37 AM »
you do know where it was shown that Biden's sister was not married to a Dominion owner. The two have the same last name but not the same first name.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1215 on: December 25, 2020, 10:59:53 AM »
Don't bother, msquared. Lambert lives in the world of 8kun where all democrats either eat or have sex with children.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1216 on: December 25, 2020, 11:48:58 AM »
Wm

Wall Street Journal?  That link is to the Western Journal and is an opinion piece.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1217 on: December 25, 2020, 12:42:52 PM »
Wm

In case you missed it the first time we told you Biden was not related to the owner of Dominion by marriage, here it is again.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-no-joe-bidens-180145435.html

You see that is part of the problem.  You post something that is easily verifiable with about a minutes research, but do not do the research. Someone else does and proves conclusively that your statement is wrong. You almost never acknowledge that your original statement was wrong.

And then a week or two later, seemingly hopeful every one will forget that what you posted was crap, you post it again like it had never been challenged. This makes most of the "Evidence" you supply suspect.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1218 on: December 25, 2020, 09:46:50 PM »
The Kraken witnesses keep getting better and better. After the "Spyder" turned out to not be quite the expert claimed, another is a possible fraud.

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/sidney-powell-terpsichore-maras-lindeman-trump-election-fraud-special-counsel-020845575.html

These fine, upstanding people with absolutely nothing to gain by telling their stories.  You just have to trust them.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1219 on: December 27, 2020, 07:53:26 AM »
Another traitor and Never Trumper comes out of the woodwork.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-supporter-fox-news-star-070406956.html

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1220 on: December 27, 2020, 03:32:33 PM »
Ok here is Trump lawyer Lin Wood

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pro-trump-lawyer-called-republican-142706761.html

He says that since the Dominion software is designed to steal votes from GOP and turn them Dem, that Republicans should not vote. But the software is not able to determine when there is really only a very small volume of Rep votes. So that if there are almost no Rep votes for Senate, the machines will show a negative count for Republican's.

I like this idea for 2 reasons. First, it will mean a win for the Dems in GA and second, when no negative votes show up on the Rep side, it might put this scheme to rest. Of course they will just say that the machines were reprogrammed and made to not do that they said it would do.

Still would not mind record low turn out for Rep.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1221 on: December 29, 2020, 09:55:29 AM »
There has not been debunking of the affidavits that witnessed illegal actions.

And yet you haven't put together a case for how this happened in a single county or jurisdiction. You just keep making vague claims like the affidavits prove election fraud without telling us which affidavits, where, how many votes, etc. I know that's how your news folk give it to you. Its literally impossible to disprove such a vague assertion. Pick one county and give me the evidence of wide spread or organized voter fraud there. Preferably something larger than the 1 Republican caught voting for his dead mother.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1222 on: December 29, 2020, 11:25:31 AM »
I am going to use a sports analogy on this. Some is watching a soccer game for the first time. They do not know all of the rules but they know that in soccer you are not allowed to use your hands.  But there is that one guy who blocked your teams shot with his hands. How is that not a foul.  And when the ball went out of bounds, the other team used their hands to throw the ball in. That has to be fraud right there. Every one knows you don't touch the ball with your hands in soccer.  I can swear an affidavit that the other team cheated by using their hands. and the referees let them. Collusion.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1223 on: December 29, 2020, 07:23:47 PM »
Ok Pence is not going to sign on with the treasonous attempt by Ghomert et al to change the law that has been in place for about 130 years.

Not sure why Trump still wants the job?  He has not been working on being President since Nov 3.  He is golfing and tweeting and burning it all down.

I wonder when the SC will do their final rulings on the Ghomert case as well as the Kraken cases.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1224 on: December 30, 2020, 11:19:15 AM »
I am going to beat Wm to the punch with this one. Trump is repeating a NewsMax claim that Brad Raffensperger's (SOS for GA) brother works for  Huawei.

Of course the fact that Brad does not have a brother does not matter.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-spreads-newsmax-fueled-conspiracy-150356596.html

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1225 on: December 30, 2020, 01:15:27 PM »
Signature audit in Cobb county reveals massive zero fraudulent cases.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1226 on: December 30, 2020, 01:27:49 PM »
https://www.npr.org/sections/biden-transition-updates/2020/12/30/951430323/gop-sen-hawley-will-object-to-electoral-college-certification

Quote
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said Wednesday he plans to object during the Electoral College certification process when Congress convenes next week

Wonder how many states they will object to? Wonder how many GOP senators are going to vote to uphold the objections? That's an awkward vote. They are going to make a spectacle out of January 6th.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1227 on: December 30, 2020, 01:28:40 PM »
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1344142386935570434
Quote
I love the Great State of Georgia, but the people who run it, from the Governor, @BrianKempGA, to the Secretary of State, are a complete disaster and don’t have a clue, or worse. Nobody can be this stupid. Just allow us to find the crime, and turn the state Republican.... The consent decree signed by the “Secretary”, with the consent of Kemp, is perhaps even more poorly negotiated than the deal that John Kerry made with Iran. Now it turns out that Brad R’s brother works for China, and they definitely don’t want “Trump”. So disgusting! #MAGA

Hahaha! Leaving aside the non-existent brother, let me note here the "Just allow us to find the crime".

Gee, I thought you guys already had all the tremendous proof for the supposed massive fraud. But, golly, it turns out you haven't actually even found the crime, let alone any evidence for it. (Hard to find what doesn't exist, you know.)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1228 on: December 30, 2020, 02:53:51 PM »
So on the subject of Trump and lies, I think it avoids complications to say that he promotes, repeats, and makes false statements. Brad R's brother is a perfect example. He simply doesn't care whether something is true or not. Whether he does it on purpose, knowing that the statements are false, will always remain unclear.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1229 on: December 31, 2020, 09:17:48 AM »
RINO DEEP STATE TRAITOR BEN SASSE, WHOSE BROTHER WORKS FOR CHYYNA, OPENS HIS MOUTH AND LIES POUR FORTH:

"""WHAT HAPPENS ON JANUARY 6th
In November, 160 million Americans voted. On December 14, members of the Electoral College – spread across all 50 states and the District of Columbia – assembled to cast their votes to confirm the winning candidate. And on January 6, the Congress will gather together to formally count the Electoral College’s votes and bring this process to a close. 
Some members of the House and the Senate are apparently going to object to counting the votes of some states that were won by Joe Biden. Just like the rest of Senate Republicans, I have been approached by many Nebraskans demanding that I join in this project.
Having been in private conversation with two dozen of my colleagues over the past few weeks, it seems useful to explain in public why I will not be participating in a project to overturn the election – and why I have been urging my colleagues also to reject this dangerous ploy. 
Every public official has a responsibility to tell the truth, and here’s what I think the truth is – about our duties on January 6th, about claims of election fraud, and about what it takes to keep a republic.
1. IS THERE A CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR CONGRESS TO DISMISS ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES?
Yes. A member of the House and the Senate can object and, in order for the vote(s) in question to be dismissed, both chambers must vote to reject those votes.
But is it wise? Is there any real basis for it here?
Absolutely not. Since the Electoral College Act of 1887 was passed into law in the aftermath of the Civil War, not a single electoral vote has ever been thrown out by the Congress. (One goofy senator attempted this maneuver after George W. Bush won reelection in 2004, but her anti-democratic play was struck down by her Senate colleagues in a shaming vote of 74-1.)
2. IS THERE EVIDENCE OF VOTER FRAUD SO WIDESPREAD THAT IT COULD HAVE CHANGED THE OUTCOME OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?
No.
For President-Elect Biden’s 306-232 Electoral College victory to be overturned, President Trump would need to flip multiple states. But not a single state is in legal doubt. 
But given that I was not a Trump voter in either 2016 or 2020 (I wrote in Mike Pence in both elections), I understand that many Trump supporters will not want to take my word for it.  So, let’s look at the investigations and tireless analysis from Andy McCarthy over at National Review. McCarthy has been a strong, consistent supporter of President Trump, and he is also a highly regarded federal prosecutor. Let’s run through the main states where President Trump has claimed widespread fraud: 
* In Pennsylvania, Team Trump is right that lots went wrong. Specifically, a highly partisan state supreme court rewrote election law in ways that are contrary to what the legislature had written about the deadline for mail-in ballots – this is wrong. But Biden won Pennsylvania by 81,000 votes – and there appear to have been only 10,000 votes received and counted after election day. So even if every one of these votes were for Biden and were thrown out, they would not come close to affecting the outcome. Notably, Stephanos Bibas (a Trump appointee) of the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled against the president’s lawsuit to reverse Biden’s large victory, writing in devastating fashion: “calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”
* In Michigan, which Biden won by 154,000 votes, the Trump team initially claimed generic fraud statewide – but with almost no particular claims, so courts roundly rejected suit after suit. The Trump team then objected to a handful of discrepancies in certain counties and precincts, some more reasonable than others. But for the sake of argument, let’s again assume that every single discrepancy was resolved in the president’s favor: It would potentially amount to a few thousand votes and not come anywhere close to changing the state’s result.
* In Arizona, a federal judge jettisoned a lawsuit explaining that “allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court,” she wrote. “They most certainly cannot be the basis for upending Arizona’s 2020 General Election.” Nothing presented in court was serious, let alone providing a basis for overturning an election. (https://www.azcentral.com/.../federal-judge.../6506927002)
* In Nevada, there do appear to have been some irregularities – but the numbers appear to have been very small relative to Biden’s margin of victory. It would be useful for there to be an investigation into these irregularities, but a judge rejected the president’s suit because the president’s lawyers “did not prove under any standard of proof” that enough illegal votes were cast, or legal votes not counted, “to raise reasonable doubt as to the outcome of the election.” (https://www.8newsnow.com/.../judge-no-evidence-to.../)
* In Wisconsin, as McCarthy has written, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled against President Trump, suggesting that President-Elect Biden’s recorded margin of victory (about 20,000 votes) was probably slightly smaller in fact, but even re-calculating all of the votes in question in a generously pro-Trump way would not give the president a victory in the state. (https://www.nationalreview.com/.../biden-won-wisconsin.../)
* In Georgia, a Georgia Bureau of Investigation complete audit of more than 15,000 votes found one irregularity – a situation where a woman illegally signed both her and her husband’s ballot envelopes. 
At the end of the day, one of the President Trump’s strongest supporters, his own Attorney General, Bill Barr, was blunt: “We have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.” (https://apnews.com/.../barr-no-widespread-election-fraud...)
3. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMS OF THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS THAT THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN?
I started with the courts for a reason. From where I sit, the single-most telling fact is that there a giant gulf between what President Trump and his allies say in public – for example, on social media, or at press conferences outside Philadelphia landscaping companies and adult bookstores – and what President Trump’s lawyers actually say in courts of law. And that’s not a surprise. Because there are no penalties for misleading the public. But there are serious penalties for misleading a judge, and the president’s lawyers know that – and thus they have repeated almost none of the claims of grand voter fraud that the campaign spokespeople are screaming at their most zealous supporters. So, here’s the heart of this whole thing: this isn’t really a legal strategy – it’s a fundraising strategy.
Since Election Day, the president and his allied organizations have raised well over half a billion (billion!) dollars from supporters who have been led to believe that they’re contributing to a ferocious legal defense. But in reality, they’re mostly just giving the president and his allies a blank check that can go to their super-PACs, their next plane trip, their next campaign or project. That’s not serious governing. It’s swampy politics – and it shows very little respect for the sincere people in my state who are writing these checks.
4. WAIT, ARE YOU CLAIMING THERE WAS NO FRAUD OF ANY KIND THIS YEAR?
No. 160 million people voted in this election, in a variety of formats, in a process marked by the extraordinary circumstance of a global pandemic. There is some voter fraud every election cycle – and the media flatly declaring from on high that “there is no fraud!” has made things worse. It has heightened public distrust, because there are, in fact, documented cases of voter fraud every election cycle. But the crucial questions are: (A) What evidence do we have of fraud? and (B) Does that evidence support the belief in fraud on a scale so significant that it could have changed the outcome? We have little evidence of fraud, and what evidence we do have does not come anywhere close to adding up to a different winner of the presidential election.
5. BUT ISN’T IT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO INVESTIGATE THESE CLAIMS MORE THOROUGHLY? DOESN’T IT HELP GUARANTEE THE LEGITIMACY OF OUR ELECTORAL PROCESS?
I take this argument seriously because actual voter fraud – and worries about voter fraud – are poison to self-government. So yes, we should investigate all specific claims, but we shouldn’t burn down the whole process along the way. Right now we are locked in a destructive, vicious circle:
Step 1: Allege widespread voter fraud.
Step 2: Fail to offer specific evidence of widespread fraud.
Step 3: Demand investigation, on grounds that there are “allegations” of voter fraud.
I can’t simply allege that the College Football Playoff Selection Committee is “on the take” because they didn’t send the Cornhuskers to the Rose Bowl, and then – after I fail to show evidence that anyone on the Selection Committee is corrupt – argue that we need to investigate because of these pervasive “allegations” of corruption.
We have good reason to think this year’s election was fair, secure, and law-abiding. That’s not to say it was flawless. But there is no evidentiary basis for distrusting our elections altogether, or for concluding that the results do not reflect the ballots that our fellow citizens actually cast.
6. DO ANY OF YOUR COLLEAGUES DISAGREE WITH YOU ABOUT THIS?
When we talk in private, I haven’t heard a single Congressional Republican allege that the election results were fraudulent – not one. Instead, I hear them talk about their worries about how they will “look” to President Trump’s most ardent supporters.
And I get it. I hear from a lot of Nebraskans who disagree with me. Moreover, lots of them ask legitimate questions about why they should trust the mainstream media. Here’s one I got this morning: “We live in a world where thousands and thousands of stories were written about the Republican nominee’s alleged tax fraud in 2012, but then when Harry Reid admitted – after the election – that he had simply made all of this up, there were probably three media outlets that covered it for thirty seconds.  Why should I believe anything they say?” As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has watched for four years as lies made up out of whole cloth are covered as legitimate “news” stories, I understand why so many of my constituents feel this in-the-belly distrust. What so much of the media doesn’t grasp is that Trump’s attacks are powerful not because he created this anti-media sentiment, but because he figured out how to tap into it. 
Nonetheless, it seems to me that the best way we can serve our constituents is to tell the truth as we see it, and explain why.  And in my view, President-Elect Biden didn’t simply win the election; President Trump couldn’t persuade even his own lawyers to argue anything different than that in U.S. federal courts. 
…WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
The president and his allies are playing with fire. They have been asking – first the courts, then state legislatures, now the Congress – to overturn the results of a presidential election. They have unsuccessfully called on judges and are now calling on federal officeholders to invalidate millions and millions of votes. If you make big claims, you had better have the evidence. But the president doesn’t and neither do the institutional arsonist members of Congress who will object to the Electoral College vote.
Let’s be clear what is happening here:  We have a bunch of ambitious politicians who think there’s a quick way to tap into the president’s populist base without doing any real, long-term damage. But they’re wrong – and this issue is bigger than anyone’s personal ambitions. Adults don’t point a loaded gun at the heart of legitimate self-government.
We have a deep cancer in American politics right now: Both Republicans and Democrats are growing more distrustful of the basic processes and procedures that we follow. Some people will respond to these arguments by saying: “The courts are just in the tank for Democrats!” And indeed the President has been tweeting that “the courts are bad” (and the Justice Department, and more). That’s an example of the legitimacy crisis so many of us have been worried about. Democrats spent four years pretending Trump didn’t win the election, and now (shocker) a good section of Republicans are going to spend the next four years pretending Biden didn’t win the election.
All the clever arguments and rhetorical gymnastics in the world won’t change the fact that this January 6th effort is designed to disenfranchise millions of Americans simply because they voted for someone in a different party. We ought to be better than that.  If we normalize this, we’re going to turn American politics into a Hatfields and McCoys endless blood feud – a house hopelessly divided.
America has always been fertile soil for groupthink, conspiracy theories, and showmanship. But Americans have common sense. We know up from down, and if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. We need that common sense if we’re going to rebuild trust.
It won’t be easy, but it’s hardly beyond our reach. And it’s what self-government requires. It’s part of how, to recall Benjamin Franklin, we struggle to do right by the next generation and “keep a republic.”""

There are some major problems with Traitor Sasse's statements:

First, Traitor Sasse DOES NOT UNDERSTAND STATISTICS!  He's an idiot with just a PhD in History from that bastion of elitism and leftism, Yale.  He's right up there with William F Buckley, another elitist neo-con.  He doesn't understand that it's impossible that it's statistically impossible for more people to have voted for Biden than Trump.  See the report by patriot Charles Cicchetti, an actual economist, who proves that THESE VOTES must be statistically similar to THESE VOTES or they're fake.  Certainly none of those judges, even the traitorous ones that were granted fiefdoms by Trump and owe him loyalty, do not understand statistics.  Traitor Andrew McCarthy of that bastion of neo-con elitism, National Review, does not understand statistics, despite working for Rudy Giuliani in the US Attorney's Office for New York and being a professor at New York Law School.  Now, Rudy Giuliani, there is a man who understands statistics.

Second, Traitor Sasse doesn't understand that all that money is being given to protect our rights, We The People of the United States, from the fraud of the democrat machine.  You can tell they have a huge fraud machine because they don't want voter ID.  They can't win without cheating.  And you can tell Traitor Sasse is an elitist because he talks down about adult bookstores.  Savior Trump doesn't need our money, he is a gazillionaire successful businessman.  He's trying to GIVE US $$$$. 




LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1230 on: December 31, 2020, 10:53:48 AM »
Reid didn't claim tax fraud he claimed that Romney hasn't paid taxes for 10 years - which can be tax avoidance - not an accusation of fraud.  Romney did pay taxes in 2011 and 2010 - but Reid didn't specify which 10 years (What Reid was talking about was that when Romney's father ran he had released 12 years of filings - so specifically the 10 years almost certainly was referring to 1999-2009).  So while it is possible that Reid was making a false accusation - there is no evidence that was the case.  There is no evidence or even reasonable implication that Reid accused Romney of fraud.




DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1231 on: December 31, 2020, 11:11:17 AM »
I think Sasse had to throw some rhetorical bones to the base in the hopes of getting at least a minimal amount of traction... just like "the media" was not "flatly declaring from on high that 'there is no fraud!' " .  I'm almost surprised that the word "significant" was not chosen to be the word of the year, it got exercised so much in the context of alleged-vote-fraud-reporting.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1232 on: December 31, 2020, 11:22:32 AM »
To those that say they want to avoid fraud and DON'T want to suppress votes, wouldn't they be advancing plans to vastly increase early voting and the number of polling places, voter registration drives, and at home voting with verification? I'm still waiting. Don't be fooled by that rhetoric. They want voting to be difficult for poor and urban dwellers.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1233 on: December 31, 2020, 11:23:56 AM »
Reid didn't claim tax fraud he claimed that Romney hasn't paid taxes for 10 years - which can be tax avoidance - not an accusation of fraud.  Romney did pay taxes in 2011 and 2010 - but Reid didn't specify which 10 years (What Reid was talking about was that when Romney's father ran he had released 12 years of filings - so specifically the 10 years almost certainly was referring to 1999-2009).  So while it is possible that Reid was making a false accusation - there is no evidence that was the case.  There is no evidence or even reasonable implication that Reid accused Romney of fraud.

Wow, LR.  You should work for Reid.  Your defense is so much better than Reid's defense of his actions.  He basically just said "Well Romney's not President now, is he?". 

But you are technically correct.  You have split that hair so finely, I knight thee "Brother Masamune".  Reid did not accuse Romney of fraud.  There is no reasonable implication that Reid accused Romney of fraud.  Whomever Sasse is quoting has their facts twisted. 

You're right.  Reid specifically accused Romney of not paying taxes at all for 10 years.  He didn't specify which 10 years, so you really can't prove that Reid was making a false accusation, now can you?  He might have been talking about when Mitt was just a baby.  Surely he didn't pay taxes for 10 years then. Nevermind that Reid never produced any evidence that Romney did not pay taxes for 10 years.  The key takeaway is that there is no evidence that Romney DID pay taxes for some unspecified 10 years. 

YES!  THE KEY HERE.  THE KEY!  IS THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.  NONE AT ALL, THAT ROMNEY DID IN FACT.... IN FACT!... PAY TAXES FOR SOME UNSPECIFIED 10 YEARS. 

Heck, they don't even have to be consecutive years do they?  They could be years in the *censored*ing future!  Reid could be talking about the years 2201, 2203, 1776, 1861, 1911, 2323, 500BC, etc. 

THAT!  THAT SIR!  IS WHAT YOU MUST TAKE OUT OF THAT ENTIRE STATEMENT!  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, SIR!  NONE AT ALL!  THAT HARRY REID LIED HIS ASS OFF!  NONE! 

I would never have noticed that.  Thank you.  Thank you Brother Masamune, for your sharp eye.  It has changed the way I look at the entire statement. 

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1234 on: December 31, 2020, 11:37:46 AM »
Heh heh. :)

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1235 on: December 31, 2020, 12:44:19 PM »
Grant,

feel free to have your fun.  There is a world of difference between tax fraud and tax avoidance accusations.  It wouldn't surprise me at all that Romney didn't have an income tax liability for 10 years.  Extremely wealthy individuals have had loop holes where they borrow against stock etc. then cash out some of their loser stocks and winner stocks for a net of zero capital gains.  The interest on the loan is deductible and since the stocks cashed out have a net zero capital gains - they have zero or negative tax liability.

That is just one of many ways.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1236 on: December 31, 2020, 12:45:35 PM »
To those that say they want to avoid fraud and DON'T want to suppress votes, wouldn't they be advancing plans to vastly increase early voting and the number of polling places, voter registration drives, and at home voting with verification? I'm still waiting. Don't be fooled by that rhetoric. They want voting to be difficult for poor and urban dwellers.

Early voting is problematic, for several reasons, that were apparent to bipartisan groups as soon as six years ago, but lost a bunch of traction among democrats recently as the rhetoric machine went into high gear and was seen as another bullet to used against republicans. 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/early-voting-the-case-against-102748

The majority of Republican rank and file that are trying to disqualify early votes are against it not because it makes it difficult for poor and urban dwellers, but because it aids Democrats.  It's simple partisanship.  It could be early votes from Suzie Q in the 'Burbs, or some liberal slathered in green living in Beverly Hills, they'd still try to disqualify their votes.  It's not about rich or poor, or rural vs urban, or white vs everybody else. 

The number of polling places is often controlled by the county or parish they are located in, and their local election officials.  Often the number of polling places is dictated by the number of volunteers you can get or the funding involved. Volunteers are of course in short supply in the year of the 'Rona.  Urban counties are overwhelmingly democrat controlled, and their election officials are the same.  If you read the articles, you'll see this mentioned, but it's usually at the bottom area. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-voter-suppression-smear-is-back-11584573063
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/14/republican-party-wisconsin/wisconsin-gop-misfires-saying-democratic-mayors-cl/
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924527679/why-do-nonwhite-georgia-voters-have-to-wait-in-line-for-hours-too-few-polling-pl

Voter registration drives are of course unimpeded as far as I know.  I don't know what "at home voting with verification" means.  Isn't that the same as absentee mail in voting?  The bi-partisan arguments against that have already been shown.

While I personally would say that this year was an exception due to a pandemic, I personally believe that the vast majority of voting should take place in person, on election day, whatever day that falls on, and that some form of voter ID should be required.  I don't believe this is new.  This is The Way. And it used to not be controversial until somebody saw that it could be turned around and politicized. 

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1237 on: December 31, 2020, 12:51:48 PM »
There is a world of difference between tax fraud and tax avoidance accusations.  It wouldn't surprise me at all that Romney didn't have an income tax liability for 10 years.  Extremely wealthy individuals have had loop holes where they borrow against stock etc. then cash out some of their loser stocks and winner stocks for a net of zero capital gains.  The interest on the loan is deductible and since the stocks cashed out have a net zero capital gains - they have zero or negative tax liability.

You are right, LR.  There is a world of difference between tax fraud and tax avoidance accusations. 

Romney really could have not paid taxes for 10 years. 

Monkeys really could fly out of my butt.

The CIA really could have killed Kennedy.

Trump really could have won the election. 

Again, I want to thank you for your keen takeaway from the statement by Sasse.  Nobody else except you would have focused in on that with your laser sharp attention to detail. 

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1238 on: December 31, 2020, 02:44:53 PM »
If said voter ID is provided free of charge by the state, I can agree to go along with it in the name of compromise.

Otherwise it's just a poll tax.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1239 on: December 31, 2020, 02:48:53 PM »
Flashpoint has a very upbeat discussion: https://youtu.be/6YTlhqd7PM0

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1240 on: December 31, 2020, 02:49:30 PM »
I also remember the line I stood in to vote before I left the US and it was insanely long. Richest country in the world, birthplace of modern democracy, somehow can't find the money to give urban areas the same consideration as rural one when it comes to voting.

And I'm in the UK now and the last time I voted my appointed spot was the parking lot of the local pub where they'd thrown up a tent. Worked just fine.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1241 on: December 31, 2020, 02:52:35 PM »
Flashpoint has a very upbeat discussion: https://youtu.be/6YTlhqd7PM0

I do like your links as I've said, however I'm not about to sit through an hour long video to try and understand why the people I disagree with disagree with me.

Any way you could give us a summarized recap?

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1242 on: December 31, 2020, 03:14:38 PM »
According to the Constitution, all that has to happen for Trump to have won the election is for Pence to throw out the Electoral college representatives from four disputed states. Then the non-President-elect Biden can be properly prosecuted for treason. The seriousness of the attempted coup cannot be allowed to stand. I don't know why so many here refuse to even look at the evidence. https://youtu.be/6YTlhqd7PM0

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1243 on: December 31, 2020, 03:23:28 PM »
Flashpoint has a very upbeat discussion: https://youtu.be/6YTlhqd7PM0

I do like your links as I've said, however I'm not about to sit through an hour long video to try and understand why the people I disagree with disagree with me.

Any way you could give us a summarized recap?

BTW; you can fast forward to the 17:30 or the 19:30 point in the video to get specifics. However; you need to put in the effort to vet what is said, not just listen for a few seconds.  I have, and there is no doubt that election fraud was proved.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1244 on: December 31, 2020, 03:28:47 PM »
If said voter ID is provided free of charge by the state, I can agree to go along with it in the name of compromise.

Some states that require ID, such as Texas, already provide free ID cards. But I don't believe this is a strong enough compromise.  I personally believe that all American citizens, either now or at birth, should be implanted with a microchip created by Bill Gates.  This chip must be called the Municipal American Readable Chip.  Nobody can vote without a valid chip scan from a scanning machine called the Ballot Electronic Assurance Scanning Terminal, also paid for by the government by raising taxes on lottery winners. 

This will obviously infuriate liberals because, you know, they won't be able to cheat on elections anymore.
It will equally infuriate conservatives who don't want a Bill Gates chip embedded in their wrists and turning them gay. 

You know you have a good compromise when everyone is upset.  I call it the Solon Method of compromise.   

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1245 on: December 31, 2020, 04:05:55 PM »
If said voter ID is provided free of charge by the state, I can agree to go along with it in the name of compromise.

Some states that require ID, such as Texas, already provide free ID cards. But I don't believe this is a strong enough compromise.  I personally believe that all American citizens, either now or at birth, should be implanted with a microchip created by Bill Gates.  This chip must be called the Municipal American Readable Chip.  Nobody can vote without a valid chip scan from a scanning machine called the Ballot Electronic Assurance Scanning Terminal, also paid for by the government by raising taxes on lottery winners. 

This will obviously infuriate liberals because, you know, they won't be able to cheat on elections anymore.
It will equally infuriate conservatives who don't want a Bill Gates chip embedded in their wrists and turning them gay. 

You know you have a good compromise when everyone is upset.  I call it the Solon Method of compromise.

6/10 decent effort should have tried to make the names make funny acronyms.

Like these guys did.

https://junkee.com/katie-hopkins-youtuber/240111

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1246 on: December 31, 2020, 04:22:24 PM »
Flashpoint has a very upbeat discussion: https://youtu.be/6YTlhqd7PM0

I do like your links as I've said, however I'm not about to sit through an hour long video to try and understand why the people I disagree with disagree with me.

Any way you could give us a summarized recap?

BTW; you can fast forward to the 17:30 or the 19:30 point in the video to get specifics. However; you need to put in the effort to vet what is said, not just listen for a few seconds.  I have, and there is no doubt that election fraud was proved.

Thanks, Lambert.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1247 on: December 31, 2020, 06:30:55 PM »
Quote
Nobody else except you would have focused in on that

I didn't focus on it - I merely offered a point of clarification on a falsehood in an otherwise fairly well written statement.

Also it is highly probable that over that 12 year time period that Romney paid little or no taxes most years.  You are treating it as a highly questionable claim but it is quite common for extremely wealthy individuals to zero tax liability for most years.  The commenters I've seen have zero understanding of how our tax laws work and that it quite possible and even common for extremely wealthy people to have very low liability for many years.  They are inferring that since Romney paid taxes in two years Reid must have been lying.

Also here is what was said by Reid
Quote
George, who released 12 years of tax returns when he sought the GOP presidential nomination in 1968.
"Mitt Romney can't do that because he's basically paid no taxes in the prior 12 years," Reid said.

So Romney have extremely low liability over that period would be consistent with a 'basically no' statement in common parlance.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1248 on: December 31, 2020, 07:44:30 PM »
To those that say they want to avoid fraud and DON'T want to suppress votes, wouldn't they be advancing plans to vastly increase early voting and the number of polling places, voter registration drives, and at home voting with verification? I'm still waiting. Don't be fooled by that rhetoric. They want voting to be difficult for poor and urban dwellers.

Early voting is problematic, for several reasons, that were apparent to bipartisan groups as soon as six years ago, but lost a bunch of traction among democrats recently as the rhetoric machine went into high gear and was seen as another bullet to used against republicans. 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/early-voting-the-case-against-102748

The majority of Republican rank and file that are trying to disqualify early votes are against it not because it makes it difficult for poor and urban dwellers, but because it aids Democrats.  It's simple partisanship.  It could be early votes from Suzie Q in the 'Burbs, or some liberal slathered in green living in Beverly Hills, they'd still try to disqualify their votes.  It's not about rich or poor, or rural vs urban, or white vs everybody else. 

The number of polling places is often controlled by the county or parish they are located in, and their local election officials.  Often the number of polling places is dictated by the number of volunteers you can get or the funding involved. Volunteers are of course in short supply in the year of the 'Rona.  Urban counties are overwhelmingly democrat controlled, and their election officials are the same.  If you read the articles, you'll see this mentioned, but it's usually at the bottom area. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-voter-suppression-smear-is-back-11584573063
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/14/republican-party-wisconsin/wisconsin-gop-misfires-saying-democratic-mayors-cl/
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924527679/why-do-nonwhite-georgia-voters-have-to-wait-in-line-for-hours-too-few-polling-pl

Voter registration drives are of course unimpeded as far as I know.  I don't know what "at home voting with verification" means.  Isn't that the same as absentee mail in voting?  The bi-partisan arguments against that have already been shown.

While I personally would say that this year was an exception due to a pandemic, I personally believe that the vast majority of voting should take place in person, on election day, whatever day that falls on, and that some form of voter ID should be required.  I don't believe this is new.  This is The Way. And it used to not be controversial until somebody saw that it could be turned around and politicized.

The only reason I personally felt safe to vote this year was early voting. If Texas had absentee voting, I would have done that.

Voting ID? I can order liquor with my photo ID through my phone. I can notarize documents online. Why should it not be that easy for voting? Then we do not have to be limited by volunteer numbers. BTW, I applied to be a poll worker because I feared there might be a shortage.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1249 on: January 01, 2021, 04:03:15 AM »
Also here is what was said by Reid
Quote
George, who released 12 years of tax returns when he sought the GOP presidential nomination in 1968.
"Mitt Romney can't do that because he's basically paid no taxes in the prior 12 years," Reid said.

So Romney have extremely low liability over that period would be consistent with a 'basically no' statement in common parlance.

What evidence did Reid offer that Mitt Romney has "basically paid no taxes in the prior 12 years"?

Or was he just making an unsubstantiated claim, also known as a "lie", similar to Trump accusing people of stealing the election?
« Last Edit: January 01, 2021, 04:13:24 AM by Aris Katsaris »