Cont: Trump et al continued “2020 election” conspiracy theories

[CaptainHowdy]

A person handed another person a thing. What does it matter what the thing was?

If the thing is evidence of a crime then it matters.

There are cameras in ballot processing facilities. That is to ensure against fraud.

There should be cameras but are there? Where's the footage from inside the building after cardboard was placed over the windows to prevent observers from watching the vote count? Where's the alt footage of Ruby pulling ballots out from under the table?

See the video I posted above. The video you are looking at has been altered from that to zoom in at appropriate time.

The video I saw earlier isn't the same as the one that was posted above. I can't find the video I saw anymore. Neither of them are compelling evidence of election fraud anyway.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

I don't believe that. Those who speculate will simply say those people lied.

Not if those explanations made sense. The refusal to explain is frankly more suspicious than the action itself.

Much more importantly: Why do you keep looking for possible anomalies when the election results have been rechecked repeatedly, and no systematic faults have been found? Why keep obsessing about "suspicious" actions when no evidence of fraud can be found? We are not talking about the odd slip, here. We are talking about tens of thousands of votes. Nobody can find any of them.

Hans

The problem is that these anomalies haven't been explain. The courts have yet to reject any of them.

 

[Armitage72]

Where's the footage from inside the building after cardboard was placed over the windows to prevent observers from watching the vote count belligerent people who had no legal reason to be there from harrasing the vote counters?

I fixed your mistake.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

One wonders why it didn't have legs in Pennsylvania, except for because it's ********.

Or that it happened in Georgia.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

I fixed your mistake.

Do you even know what I'm talking about? I didn't think so.

 

[eerok]

Or that it happened in Georgia.

It happened other places as well --- MI and AZ. Those "observers" were Stop the Count goons yelling and hammering on the windows. I saw the live coverage of the incident in (IIRC) AZ as it occurred.

 

[Resume]

It happened other places as well --- MI and AZ. Those "observers" were Stop the Count goons yelling and hammering on the windows. I saw the live coverage of the incident in (IIRC) AZ as it occurred.

How many times does the same bull **** have to be debunked?

 

[Armitage72]

Do you even know what I'm talking about? I didn't think so.

I assumed that you were talking about the TCF Center in Detroit, when random Trump supporters, who were not legally appointed observers, were standing outside the Center, harassing the vote counters, and taking photos and videos through the windows which could endanger voter information. This resulted in the windows being covered, while the legitimate Republican and Democrat observers remained inside to observe the vote counting.

You know, the reality of the situation, instead of the paranoid fantasies and lies promoted on right-wing media.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I just saw it reported that the DC mayor has requested National Guard troops for Wednesday, and the pentagon has approved such troops.

 

[gnome]

Or that it happened in Georgia.

Ya got me there. I'm forgetting where they're piling up the ********.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited for rule 10

 

[CaptainHowdy]

It happened other places as well --- MI and AZ. Those "observers" were Stop the Count goons yelling and hammering on the windows. I saw the live coverage of the incident in (IIRC) AZ as it occurred.

Still not Pennsylvania

 

[CaptainHowdy]

How many times does the same bull **** have to be debunked?

Once.

 

[eerok]

I just saw it reported that the DC mayor has requested National Guard troops for Wednesday, and the pentagon has approved such troops.

I'm glad to hear it.

 

[Paul2]

Not if those explanations made sense. The refusal to explain is frankly more suspicious than the action itself.


The problem is that these anomalies haven't been explain. The courts have yet to reject any of them.

Can you lay out the single, best, most-evidenced anomaly you're aware of?

 

[eerok]

Still not Pennsylvania

In all cases I've heard about, regardless of the state, covering the windows by poll workers was only done to mitigate disruption and intimidation from the Stop the Count goons. Also in every case, the GOP poll watchers were still inside with the counters when this occurred.

 

[Resume]

Once.

To which example of bull **** do you refer?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Not if those explanations made sense. The refusal to explain is frankly more suspicious than the action itself.


The problem is that these anomalies haven't been explain. The courts have yet to reject any of them.

I really, really, really don't think that is true. All the so called anomalies I have read about have been explained with quite reasonable explanations. "Shredded ballots"? No. "Other documents, not related to the current election being shredded". On and On and On.

I am willing to accept that an occasional error was made here and there but the scale of fraud claimed would involve a conspiracy so vast it could only believed by a paranoid. Which seems to explain a lot.

 

[dudalb]

How many times does the same bull **** have to be debunked?

Forever. JFK conspiracy crap which has been debunked for 50 years still spouts up.

 

[turingtest]

I really, really, really don't think that is true. All the so called anomalies I have read about have been explained with quite reasonable explanations. "Shredded ballots"? No. "Other documents, not related to the current election being shredded". On and On and On.

I am willing to accept that an occasional error was made here and there but the scale of fraud claimed would involve a conspiracy so vast it could only believed by a paranoid. Which seems to explain a lot.

"So called anomalies" is exactly right- CTists have this strange habit of using the word as if it means "something that looks weird to me," without any idea that it requires a little more definition than that. It requires context to identify an anomaly- you need a contrast with what is normally expected in a given situation to say something is an anomalistic exception. So, in this case, CTists put themselves in the rather silly position of saying that a person passing something across a table to somebody else in a setting like this one is a complete deviation from the norm. Because, you know...nobody ever does that.

 

[Meadmaker]

How many times does the same bull **** have to be debunked?

As dudalb said, it will never be completely debunked. The Believers will go on believing no matter how many times it gets debunked.


However, I think with the phone call, we have finally turned a corner. Trump went too far, and a whole lot of people are calling him out on it. Of course his rabid base will stick with him, but I think he put his foot in his mouth so much this time that public figures will be embarrassed to take his side. He's attacking Tom Cotton. Every single Defense Secretary signed a letter against keeping this up. I just saw a headline about 170 business leaders. National Review has some scathing anti-Trump articles. They were never exactly Trump fans, but looking at townhall.com and patriotpost.us, two sites I sometimes check to see what the right wing is up to, there is not a single article about fraud or questioning the outcome of the race.

It will be interesting to see if the Cruz Dozen actually go through with their objection Wednesday, or if they find some way to weasel out of it.

Really, ever since Mitch McConnell said "President-Elect" the day after the electors voted, none of this could be taken very seriously, but I think with the phone call, he showed that somebody would indeed want to rig the election, and it wasn't the Democrats.