Cont: 2020 Presidential Election part 3

[Bob001]

What did you guys think I was saying when I said I was seeing evidence? Did you think I had some boxes of contested ballots sitting in my living room or?
.....

You probably don't have a box of ballots in your basement. But you could post links to your sources for each of your claims -- if you have them -- so we could assess them for ourselves. For example, claiming "14,000 dead people registered/voted" is dishonest. The fact that a dead person's name hasn't been removed from the rolls doesn't mean anybody else impersonated him to vote. Some voters died after they submitted their legitimate ballots, and those votes were cancelled. Both Snopes and the Detroit papers have responded to this false claim. I suspect most of your claims would also wither under close examination.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/william-bradley-dead-voters-mi/
https://www.freep.com/story/news/lo...p-jr-michigan-dead-voters-ballots/3391154001/

 

[Mojo]

What did you guys think I was saying when I said I was seeing evidence? Did you think I had some boxes of contested ballots sitting in my living room or?

I think it's a fair use of the term at this juncture to mean "claims / allegations from people who are in a position to make them credibly, which I think warrant investigation"

He’s using the Carlson defence!

 

[johnny karate]

You also need to hold that they are incredibly competent at election fraud as to tilt the numbers to Biden, except in all the areas that voted for Trump. I for one don’t find it at all coincidental that the only places they didn’t commit fraud was in places that voted Trump!

(Never mind they seem to have forgotten that senators were also being voted on in many places.)

Yes, in classic shoot-yourself-in-the-foot Democratic style, they pulled off the greatest mass voter fraud in history but forgot to steal the Senate.

 

[trustbutverify]

Right, but some means are realistic and others are not, and so I am hopeful that these things turn out to be true and viable as means.

I wish all Nazi sympathisers were as frank as yourself about their complete lack of integrity.

I also find them believable because I think the democrats are corrupt and shady (not that the republicans are free of such characteristics, but I think they manifest differently in the two parties) in ways which are consistent with this, and they have decades of documented behavior of this type.

Because you want them to be believable. And not a thing more.

 

[ahhell]

It's high time Trump had some convictions, he's lived his whole life without any.

He seems to actually believe that trade deficits are bad, for that matter trade generally. He been pretty consistent on that since the 80s anyway. Otherwise I agree.

Trump's legal challenges aren't about winning the presidency in court. It's about grifting his supporters. I'd be surprised if more than 20% of the money raised is used for legal fees.

IDK, even his desire for money seems to be in service to his ego. He think the notion of losing is crushing him right now.

Edit to add, its been awhile, I didn't realize I was responding to posts from 7 pages back. Sorry about that.

On the voter fraud thing, I'm certain there was some, I'm also certain it wasn't enough to matter. I encourage investigations into the credible allegations. I'm sure they won't turn up much but it should be done for the few folks out there that might be convinced by it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yes, in classic shoot-yourself-in-the-foot Democratic style, they pulled off the greatest mass voter fraud in history but forgot to steal the Senate.

You laugh that's the most realistic part of this whole fantasy.

 

[Delvo]

I'm not going to respond to the delusions/lies about the Alpha Loser having somehow secretly really won. But there is a much more interesting subject to pay attention to in this election's results.

Exit polls, the polls of actual voters after actually voting, show that Trump got more of the non-white vote than any Republican since 1960 (roughly when the two parties traded places on racial issues). He also doubled his gay vote since last time. Even before the election some Democrats were admitting that Latinos in Florida were turning against them (at least when they thought they could use that against progressives), but it wound up happening in the other states too, and black people are one of the groups with which he got the biggest growth. The only group with which Trump did worse than last time was white men, especially less-educated white men. The whole thing shifted toward exactly the opposite of what would be expected by conventional wisdom.

I don't believe it's because there's been a change in what everybody but white men want. It's probably because more and more people who aren't white men are realizing that what they want is not what most Democrats really stand for.

 

[eerok]

I don't believe it's because there's been a change in what everybody but white men want. It's probably because more and more people who aren't white men are realizing that what they want is not what most Democrats really stand for.

No, I think they've been scammed.

 

[wareyin]

I'm not going to respond to the delusions/lies about the Alpha Loser having somehow secretly really won. But there is a much more interesting subject to pay attention to in this election's results.

Exit polls, the polls of actual voters after actually voting, show that Trump got more of the non-white vote than any Republican since 1960 (roughly when the two parties traded places on racial issues). He also doubled his gay vote since last time. Even before the election some Democrats were admitting that Latinos in Florida were turning against them (at least when they thought they could use that against progressives), but it wound up happening in the other states too, and black people are one of the groups with which he got the biggest growth. The only group with which Trump did worse than last time was white men, especially less-educated white men. The whole thing shifted toward exactly the opposite of what would be expected by conventional wisdom.

I don't believe it's because there's been a change in what everybody but white men want. It's probably because more and more people who aren't white men are realizing that what they want is not what most Democrats really stand for.

I wouldn't put much stock in the exit polls that are being released before all the votes are counted and don't have a reliable method of accounting for mail in ballots.

 

[Aridas]

I'm going to poke at this a little out of order -

I'm saying I am seeing allegations (and not seeing convincing refutations of most of them) that, if proven true, are quite serious and these issues to me seem to obviously necessitate an investigation. I don't think that's a huge claim to make.

First and foremost, I agree that oddities and potential problems should be checked, at least provided that there's reasonable basis and evidence to work with. Election integrity is important. With that said, though, I fully admit being distrustful towards many of the accusations flung around on the right, after having reviewed quite a few and having found quite a lot to be, to be frank, inane. Not all, but more than enough to not immediately accept claims without actually looking at them a bit further.

Michigan

• A city worker in Detroit claims he and fellow employees were told to back date ballots that came in too late. (Solomon)

• Antrim county was initially reported as going to Biden. This was so implausible that votes were recounted, and the county went to Trump. The initial miscount was due to "human error."

• Democrat absentee votes in Oakland county were counted twice. Once corrected, the result of the local election flipped for the Republican.

• Over 14,000 dead people registered / voted

Your Michigan concerns are decently handled in... GOP calls for Michigan election probe. Officials say their claims are weak.

I'm not seeing that last one about 14,000 dead people addressed there, though. By just googling what you typed, though, multiple fact checkers deemed it outright false.

Incidentally, that also led me to stumble across this -

First Person | I was a Detroit poll challenger. The GOP came to make havoc.

Honestly, it's pretty telling.

Pennsylvania

• Election observers were kept 30 feet from the actual vote counting, meaning they could not see the ballots

Alternately, according to the Trump campaign, up to 100 feet. That challenge, at least, was reasonable, as a judge agreed and the situation was dealt with. It's somewhat problematic that it happened at all... but also not at all unreasonable under the circumstances. This has been a very unusual year, after all, and there are very unusual challenges that needed to be met. Mistakes happen in circumstances like that.

• Statistically impossible voter turnout, and record number of people over 90 years old registering to vote

Source? I'm not easily finding either of these on a quick search.

• Illegally backdated votes that came in too late

Would this happen to be the Project Veritas claim?

Wisconsin

• Voter turnout higher than number of registered voters in some areas

Higher than a number from 2018, rather?

• Election officials tracked down witness addresses for absentee ballots to validate votes, a policy that may be illegal.

Not seeing this on a quick search. Source?

• After the pause in reporting, vote shares shifted in favor of democrats within city wards, meaning this was not due to more democratic areas reporting later, and this was truer the more behind the democrats were in each ward, contrary to what an explanation based on late mail-in voters would predict.

Same as above.

• Only the state legislature can change election procedures, but election officials allowed potentially over 100,000 voters to bypass ID requirements by claiming that COVID prevented them from leaving home.

That's potentially a thorny issue there, regardless, but, before delving further into it, I have to ask whether there were relevant contingencies in the election procedures that were being invoked. And, for that matter, whether the ID requirements were actually bypassed.

Arizona

• Based on sworn testimony, it is alleged that ballots in Maricopa county featuring "over-voting" were invalidated rather than fixed. (Singman)

The Sharpie marked ballots?

Georgia

• Illegal ballot harvesting

While problematic if true - it's worth remembering that this is Georgia. There have been lots of GOP electoral shenanigans and false accusations made in Georgia, over and over and over.

And then there are things like this:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/oDfWFqc.png[/qimg]

That, when one considers the larger events context and locations that the ballots are from, is honestly not surprising, let alone suspicious at all, much as for some of them, it may be cause for suspicion that they weren't even more skewed towards Biden.

 

[trustbutverify]

I don't believe it's because there's been a change in what everybody but white men want. It's probably because more and more people who aren't white men are realizing that what they want is not what most Democrats really stand for.

So they voted for for a party that stands for even less than what they want?

Sounds intelligent.

 

[Paul2]

Incidentally, that also led me to stumble across this -

First Person | I was a Detroit poll challenger. The GOP came to make havoc.

Honestly, it's pretty telling.

Here's a representative sample:

"At one point after lunch, a woman with the GOP suggested that a box of ballots had been taken from the tabulator area and was being moved back to the precinct. A group of GOP challengers ran after the team leader carrying a box back to a counting board. They surrounded him and demanded he open it, certain they had nabbed a fraudster. He was unbothered, opened the box and let everyone look inside. It was empty. He had dropped off ballots that were ready to be processed at the tabulator area and was going to the precinct to pick up more."

 

[slyjoe]

The Arizona lawsuit is "Sharpiegate Redux" or "Green Button".

Sharpie lawsuit - ballots were rejected due to voters being given a Sharpie. The manufacturer actually recommends Sharpies because they dry faster than regular ink. No ballots were rejected due to Sharpie use.

The new lawusit should be called "Green Button" lawsuit. Most officials say it is a rehash of the Sharpie lawsuit - ballots were incorrectly rejected due to pushing a green button on a counting machine if it didn't take the ballot the first time.

 

[eerok]

Putin said the US election was "sloppy", but that's what happens when people are actually allowed to vote.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Putin said the US election was "sloppy", but that's what happens when people are actually allowed to vote.

I think he's criticizing the GOP's sloppy rigging of the election. If they did it right, then Trump would've "won" this election.

 

[quadraginta]

I lucky this hasn't happened to me yet. I can think of a few times I've pulled my phone out of my pocket to find apps open that I didn't even know I had and my browser has multiple tabs to a variety of places man was not meant to go.

I don't carry my phone in a pocket, but I have seen plenty of examples of what random clicks can do.

I have an old phone that I use as a bedside clock, with a large full-screen clock face app.

I also live with a cat who likes to encourage me to wake up by shoving things around (and occasionally off of) my bedside table. The things she can do to that phone boggle the imagination.

And I'm certain she knows what she's doing. Either that or she just enjoys watching the screen change when she pokes at it.

 

[eerok]

I think he's criticizing the GOP's sloppy rigging of the election. If they did it right, then Trump would've "won" this election.

He's definitely the authority on skeezy election tactics. I'm surprised he didn't provide Trump with a coloring book full of useful tips.

 

[quadraginta]

It's funny. I watched a report today about Alabama ballots being delivered to a residence in Texas. An immediate thought is that something nefarious going on. Maybe with the USPS perhaps? But a cursory examination with an open mind suggest that while something strange did happen, two ballots being misdelivered is not persuasive evidence of anything corrupt.

Depends. If they were ballots from Repugnicans then it is clear evidence of widespread election fraud by Democrats.

If they were ballots from Democrats then it is simply a harmless error by the Post Office, probably brought about by the overwork caused by evil Democrats overloading the system.

 

[quadraginta]

Each county and in some places city prints their own ballots. My ballot had the president my representative in Congress, two county judges, school board reps, and board of supervisors on it. You'd have to have a massive operation to defraud each county or city election system.

According to our BoE website there are 11 different ballot styles being used across the 55 precincts in the county. There isn't much difference between them. Possibly only the ballot style number at the top. Maybe a few judge's seats and some non-partisan offices.

By way of example.

 

[Darat]

I'm not going to respond to the delusions/lies about the Alpha Loser having somehow secretly really won. But there is a much more interesting subject to pay attention to in this election's results.

Exit polls, the polls of actual voters after actually voting, show that Trump got more of the non-white vote than any Republican since 1960 (roughly when the two parties traded places on racial issues). He also doubled his gay vote since last time. Even before the election some Democrats were admitting that Latinos in Florida were turning against them (at least when they thought they could use that against progressives), but it wound up happening in the other states too, and black people are one of the groups with which he got the biggest growth. The only group with which Trump did worse than last time was white men, especially less-educated white men. The whole thing shifted toward exactly the opposite of what would be expected by conventional wisdom.

I don't believe it's because there's been a change in what everybody but white men want. It's probably because more and more people who aren't white men are realizing that what they want is not what most Democrats really stand for.

Can you provide link(s) to that data, sounds very interesting.