• 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.
Meadmaker said:
I was listening to a local talk radio host tonight as I drove to Costco in the suburbs of Detroit. One of the big complaints is that Republican poll observers were not allowed into the TCF Center where votes were being counted. Of course, they were allowed in, but what happened was that there were always supposed to be a certain number allowed, and that number was supposed to be equal for Democrats and Republicans.

What was happening was that as people left to go home, they were supposed to sign out, and then security would allow in a waiting observer from the same party to take their place. Sometimes, the Republican didn't know he was supposed to sign out, so they ended up short a Republican, as the security guard kept Republicans out, not knowing that there had been a Republican departure.

This proves voter fraud, or something.
Click to expand...

And, of course, had security let someone in without another signing out, it would also be voter fraud.

And this is the argument in court - observers can't sabotage the election by failing to do things like signing out when they leave. If we threw out an election just for that, it would be chaos.
 
shuttlt said:
Oh, I gave an answer before that I thought satisfied this. There are two answers, there is what the procedure says and I would imagine that would depend on the specific laws and procedures in what ever the place is we are talking about.... and there is the political answer which is it depends. Ultimately when things are this divided the political side of the question becomes increasingly important.
Click to expand...

No, that’s not an answer.

You argued that if a sufficient number of people believe a claim to be true in absence of evidence, it is reasonable to proceed as if that claim might be true.

What is the minimum number of people needed to meet that requirement?
 
shuttlt said:
What? The right is claiming fraud, hence they are disputing the result represents the "voice of the people". Almost certainly you have a different definition to the right about what the voice of the people is, but none the less it is a disagreement about what the voice of the people has said. Hence, by assuming what the voice of the people is saying you are assuming your own conclusion.
Click to expand...

You claimed that there is an argument that the election results do not represent the voice of the people.

What is the evidence that supports this argument?
 
ServiceSoon said:
Real evidence... What would that look like? Evidence can be a result of an investigation, not always a prerequisite.
Click to expand...

The case you’re referring to was investigated because a city official tasked with election oversight recorded a pattern of more votes being cast on the machines than the number of voters signing the poll books.

So yes, real evidence was used to initiate the investigation, not baseless allegations.
 
Meadmaker said:
An even bigger difference is that we're talking about 2020 versus 1982. The surveillance, oversight, and ability to check numbers and investigate abnormalities is far easier today. A concerned citizen couldn't go to the web site and see voting patterns in 1982.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The comparison is ludicrous.
 
dirtywick said:
Why is anyone sending him money? He's a liar and it undercuts all the election fraud claims.
Click to expand...

He was sent money before the news broke that he recanted. Now they'll just send him more money because obviously the deep state got to him and forced him to recant.

/Trumpanzee
 
kookbreaker said:
Here's a hint: referencing a disgraced former Congressman who was (almost) the last of the Rizzo Democrats trying to buy a handful of votes in a local election years later isn't evidence of massive fraud of tens of thousands in a 2020 Presidential election when there was a live video feed of the ballot counting and plenty of GOP Poll watchers.

Its a Poisoning the Well fallacy. I'm sure it played great in Parler.
Click to expand...
What’s parlor?

Description of poisoning the well:
Wiki said:
Poisoning the well (also called the smear tactic) is a rhetorical technique and logical fallacy that uses the association of negative emotions to distract a subject from actual evidence in an argument.
Click to expand...
Is your claim that I used negative emotions to distract from actual evidence? What I did do is present actual evidence which invoked a negative emotional response from you. The order of events is important.

Your dismissal of a modern example of election fraud could be categorized as No True Scotsman.

Wiki said:
The No True Scotsman (NTS) fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when a debater defends the generalization of a group by excluding counter-examples from it.
Click to expand...
Your exclusion of relevant and pertinent data because it is counter to your generalized notion that elections are usually conducted fairly is NTS.

How about the East Chicago Indiana 2003 election which resulted in 32 convictions. The Indiana Supreme Court required a subsequent election which resulted in a different winner.

Perhaps you’d prefer to consider that in 2008 three members of ACORN submitted 1,762 fraudulent voter registration forms in Seattle, Washington that resulted in jail time and thousands of dollars in fines?

I have many more of these historical examples. I do hope that you find one of them to be ‘real’ and ‘representative.’ They are meant to show that election fraud has happened, and will continue to occur unless we do something different.
 
jrhowell said:
So his original claim was fraudulent.

There you go! Proof of fraud involving the election!
Click to expand...

But now he's saying he didn't recant. I suspect it's something more along the lines of "After being made aware of how much trouble I'd be in if I lied, I simply withdrew my complaint. I didn't say it didn't happen I'm just not making a complaint about it"
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
The case you’re referring to was investigated because a city official tasked with election oversight recorded a pattern of more votes being cast on the machines than the number of voters signing the poll books.

So yes, real evidence was used to initiate the investigation, not baseless allegations.
Click to expand...
How will this type of verification be applied to absentee ballots?

This was but one of many examples. They are not all exactly the same. Police investigate on heresy all the time.
 
ServiceSoon said:
What’s parlor?

Description of poisoning the well: Is your claim that I used negative emotions to distract from actual evidence? What I did do is present actual evidence which invoked a negative emotional response from you. The order of events is important.
Click to expand...

No, you resurrecting a completely failed attempt at low-level voter fraud that resulting in conviction was an attempt to make it seem as if events like this were common in the Philadelphia region in the modern age. The very fact that brought up this issue in the a thread specifically about the 2020 Presidential Election means you are trying to poison the well.

Your dismissal of a modern example of election fraud could be categorized as No True Scotsman.
Click to expand...

Not at all. You are comparing apples to elephants. Ozzie tried to stuff a ballot box like it was 1982 and the system found him easily.

I'm not going over your whole list because frankly 2003 isn't 2020, when the ballot counting is livestreamed and the GOP poll watchers are looking for irregularities when they aren't even there. As for ACORN, the situation is much more complex that your simple-minded account. https://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/acorn-accusations/
 
dudalb said:
Have you considered that is what the GOP wants?
Click to expand...


I've considered it, but if they actually do want the end of democracy in the US, then it is already too late. When one party in a deeply entrenched two-party system makes that decision, then the system is gone.

At that point, it's just a question of when the civil war starts, who starts it, and how messy that war becomes.

I suppose we'll know come Dec. 14th.
 
The Trump administration is, as expected, refusing to co-operate with the Biden transition team. Obviously, part of the reason for this is that it would be tantamount to conceding the election, but former FBI assissant director Frank Figliuzzi is suspicious that there may be another reason - that Trump does want to give Biden access to security briefings...

https://twitter.com/frankfigliuzzi1?lang=en

(Warning for videophobes: contains a short video as well as text )
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom