• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
ServiceSoon said:
The police should only investigate if you or somebody else makes that claim. I would even go as far as saying you have duty to report what you know about me or anybody else being a pedophile. If you swear on your testimony that would lend even more validity to your claim. The police don't randomly think up possible crimes and investigate. Something or somebody prompts them to investigate. That is why these claims of investigating invisible dragons and such are disingenuous attempts at mockery. Police investigate on hearsay all the time.
Click to expand...

Should hearsay be treated as valid a form of evidence as something that is actually substantiated?

If someone merely accused you of pedophilia with no supporting evidence, is that the same as a video tape of you engaging in pedophilia, and should the police treat both forms of evidence with equal seriousness?
 
The Don said:
What are the specifics behind Rudy Giuliani's claim of 300,000 illegal votes in Philadelphia?

Is there hard evidence, or is it the usual baseless speculation?
Click to expand...
I believe the claim is that it is a group of ballots that were counted while Republican poll watchers were prevented from observing them. Giuliani says that election law was broken in keeping the poll watchers back so they couldn't see the ballot, a court order was then broken in continuing to do this, envelopes were thrown out which supposedly are important in validating the ballots and supposedly this means that the ballots are invalid according to Pennsylvania law. We shall see. He is talking about 450,000 ballots. He claims to have 70 witnesses to this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck2SOy7PJZE
 
shuttlt said:
The rules are not necessarily 100% precise, or consistent. I believe Trump argued before the election that late ballots shouldn't be counted based on a constitutional argument and the supreme course in their wisom decided not to make a decision until after the election.

I think Trumps argument is that the rules say he won. You are disagreeing with him about the rules. The way that disagreement gets decided seems to be first legally within the state, then the supreme court, then politically in the state, and then politically in congress.
Click to expand...

1) late ballots have not been counted. They were set aside
2) based on the mail in ballots that were received prior to Tuesday and counted, Trump will likely lose ground from the late mail ins, if they are counted
3) So no, according to the 'rules' he still lost PA. BIGLY.
 
shuttlt said:
The rules are not necessarily 100% precise, or consistent. I believe Trump argued before the election that late ballots shouldn't be counted based on a constitutional argument and the supreme course in their wisom decided not to make a decision until after the election.
Click to expand...
We all know what Trump really argued - that if he lost it could only be due to fraud. But he actually thought he would lose, so he got in early with the accusations.

I think Trumps argument is that the rules say he won.
Click to expand...
Trump's argument is that the rules don't matter, he is the real winner anyway. Trump doesn't believe in democracy, he believes he has been crowned king and nobody (especially voters) can take it away from him.

"We have to win the election. We can’t play games. Go out and vote. Do those beautiful absentee ballots, or just make sure your vote gets counted. Make sure because the only way we're going to lose this election is if the election is rigged,” Trump told the group of supporters at the outdoor campaign event. “Remember that. It’s the only way we’re going to lose this election, so we have to be very careful.”

The only way they’re going to win is that way. And we can’t let that happen” - Donald Trump, president of the United States of America​

Trump's not letting 'it' happen, because that would mean he has to give up his crown. It has nothing to with rules, but simply that he believes he is entitled to the presidency whether the democratic process says so or not.

If he manages to get his way it will be the death of democracy in America - and the beginning of the empire's destruction.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
1) late ballots have not been counted. They were set aside
2) based on the mail in ballots that were received prior to Tuesday and counted, Trump will likely lose ground from the late mail ins, if they are counted
3) So no, according to the 'rules' he still lost PA. BIGLY.
Click to expand...
That was an example of a rule that there was disagreement on not the beginning of an argument about late ballots.
 
pgwenthold said:
We will not.

The constitution states that the term lasts 4 years. Trump's term ends on Jan 20, 2021. There is no ambiguity. He can "refuse to leave" all he wants, but he won't be President.

Unless, of course, all those "strict constructionist" Constitution supporters claim that the Constitution doesn't count.
Click to expand...

unless it's a election coup the Republicans then its going for, then its going to be no easy win for either side. I was wondering about the faithless electors angle and heard conflicting blogs. One said that only about half the states forbid faithless electors and another blog said that the supreme court made faithless electors illegal. I also saw one website that said Ameripac is a democratic pac and another that said it was conservative. I am starting to wonder about the internet.
 
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets said:
We all know what Trump really argued - that if he lost it could only be due to fraud. But he actually thought he would lose, so he got in early with the accusations.
Click to expand...
Sure, so did the Democrats. Both sides have been wrestling in the mud for 4 years+, pointing out that Trump is covered in mud doesn't bother me.

Roger Ramjets said:
Trump's argument is that the rules don't matter, he is the real winner anyway.
Click to expand...
No, that is an argument that you think he believes and are attributing to him. It isn't the argument he is actually making.

Roger Ramjets said:
Trump doesn't believe in democracy, he believes he has been crowned king and nobody (especially voters) can take it away from him.
Click to expand...
This is something you believe, we may yet live long enough for you to be proved wrong if, after all these legal and constitutional avenues have been exhausted, Trump leaves office.

Roger Ramjets said:
Trump's not letting 'it' happen, because that would mean he has to give up his crown. It has nothing to with rules, but simply that he believes he is entitled to the presidency whether the democratic process says so or not.
Click to expand...
This reads like that weird routine where Clint Eastwood had a conversation with a chair.

Roger Ramjets said:
If he manages to get his way it will be the death of democracy in America - and the beginning of the empire's destruction.
Click to expand...
He'll only manage to get away with it if he manages to prove Democrats broke the rules in some massive way, or there was error on the most stupendous scale. In which case, presumably it is right that he should win... no?
 
shuttlt said:
The rules are not necessarily 100% precise, or consistent. I believe Trump argued before the election that late ballots shouldn't be counted based on a constitutional argument and the supreme course in their wisom decided not to make a decision until after the election.





.
Click to expand...

Your evidence for these claims?
 
The Don said:
What are the specifics behind Rudy Giuliani's claim of 300,000 illegal votes in Philadelphia?

Is there hard evidence, or is it the usual baseless speculation?
Click to expand...


This was apparently the purpose of the laughing stock Four Seasons press conference.


Rudy says the problem wasn't only in Philadelphia, but also in Pittsburgh ... where he claims 300,000 ballots went completely unchecked by Republicans who had a court order allowing them to observe the count.

He admits they were given access, but as you've heard for a few days now ... team Trump claims they weren't allowed to get close enough to properly observe.
Click to expand...


"We weren't allowed to observe ... well, okay, we were, but not the way we wanted."
 
Armitage72 said:
"We weren't allowed to observe ... well, okay, we were, but not the way we wanted."
Click to expand...
If they were given access in a way that meant they couldn't check what was going on, then it's not meaningful access. That then comes down to a question of election law.
 
shuttlt said:
If they were given access in a way that meant they couldn't check what was going on, then it's not meaningful access. That then comes down to a question of election law.
Click to expand...

They were given access to check what was going on. They only claimed otherwise when they saw that Trump was losing. You'll note that when Trump appeared to be winning, Republican and Democratic poll observers were both fine with standing 10 feet from ballot counters. And 10 feet away is plenty close enough to catch tens of thousands of instances of election fraud.
 
wareyin said:
They were given access to check what was going on. They only claimed otherwise when they saw that Trump was losing. You'll note that when Trump appeared to be winning, Republican and Democratic poll observers were both fine with standing 10 feet from ballot counters. And 10 feet away is plenty close enough to catch tens of thousands of instances of election fraud.
Click to expand...
That isn't the question. The question is whether election law was broken.
 
shuttlt said:
That isn't the question. The question is whether election law was broken.
Click to expand...

Election law was not broken.

If you believe it was, please cite the law and explain how. This JAQing off where you ignore the answers you don't like is tiresome.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
also

https://time.com/5908505/trump-lawsuits-biden-wins/
Click to expand...

Now this one is useful.

Here are the ONGOING cases listed

Pennsylvania
3. To compel Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar and all 67 counties to impose an earlier date for voters to show proof of identification if it was not on their initial ballots.
Click to expand...

This has to do with people correcting their ID information on their ballot. Apparently they had to have it done by yesterday to be counted. Initial claims were denied, but the judge says set those ballots aside anyway. Won't affect many at all, I'm sure.

4. To compel the Montgomery County Board of Elections to stop counting mail-in-ballots
Click to expand...

Regarding 600 votes in suburban Philadelphia. Won't affect anything.

5. To intervene in an already existing dispute before the U.S. Supreme Court about whether ballots the state received after 8 p.m. on Election Day should count.
Click to expand...

Haven't been included in the totals anyway, right? Not going to affect the outcome in PA.


That's it. Those are the only cases ongoing. Nothing in Mich, Arizona, Nevada or Georgia.

There have been plenty dismissed in those states. They have tried the "sharpie" claim in Arizona, but gave up.

This is the real Trump case for overturning the election. A few votes in PA.

The rest is bluster.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom