snafu

Great, now do the D's history of using labor unions, ballot harvesting and Census data to pump up their vote count, or their House representation. I won't get into the weeds of utilizing voter rolls to the D's advantage (stale voters, out of state voters, deceased voters, voters who may not be citizens, etc.). Go no further than gerrymandering. Both sides practice that. Like I've been saying, it is a sword that cuts both ways. You choose to look only at one edge, it appears.

Thank you for your response. As for the above, i provided an example of Democrats suppressing votes in 2016 earlier in this thread. Voting irregularities take many forms, and it isn't one party or the other that is more or less guilty. As for the rest of your thread, that's all conjecture belied by the fact that BOTH candidates have achieved records for the most votes cast in a Presidential race. Trump is always labeled. In this case, he's the worst vote-suppressor ever.

I forgot to address this... When I say "more info" than you or me, I'm talking about whatever analysis they may have of past elections and their patterns of "bad" votes vs. what they projected to happen in this election vs. what actually happened in this election. If they don't have that, then they're pissing into the wind. I would guess that they feel that the numbers can work to their advantage. Others seem to believe that Trump is just doing this to be a sore loser douchebag. It CAN be both, and I'm willing to wait it out and see what happens.

Yes, everyone knew that this would take a long time. It happened earlier this year in the primaries. It took them almost two months (I think) and that really was to tally a fraction of the electorate. And I do know that machines count the votes that are submitted into the machines. That wasn't my point. My point regarding humans is that it is humans who prepare the ballots and send them to voters. It is humans that fill out the ballots and who need to comply with the requirements regarding signing, sealing into a privacy envelope, and mailing on time, etc. Then the people receiving the ballots need to verify that the voter did things properly. Then the vote counters get to put the acceptable ballots into the machine. That's a lot of moving parts at a volume unheard of in any part of PA's history.

I believe that Kerry had a good argument in 2004 (people still talk about the Ohio results). Clinton's loss was so close in 2016 that she could have made some noise. All I am saying is that if a presumptive loser wants to challenge, that's his right. Just because he's a jerk doesn't remove the right. Results need to be certified by December 8th. If there's no actual proof or movement soon, then even the people that support Trump will fall away. Irregularities happen...you don't want those investigated? Here are two NYC examples. One was investigated and there were charges and the State settled with the City. I'm sure Bernie voters are so satisfied now. This was an illegal voter purge of Democrats before the 2016 primaries. https://www.cityandstateny.com/articles/politics/campaigns-elections/new-york-city-purged-voters-2016-it-wasnt-mistake.html The other was a mistake leading up to the 2020 election, which may or may not have been fixed. The "new" voting style that may or may not work to perfection. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/some-nyc-get-absentee-ballots-wrong-return-address-n1241362 Why would anyone consider these to be isolated events? Would mistakes or other irregularities push the result over to Trump? Doubtful in my mind, but obviously not in Trump's mind. And, again, he's got the right to request an audit.

I don’t know how monumental it would need to be. If the mai-in rate is 5x the normal rate (that’s just a made up number) then you’d expect 5x the normal amount of bad ballots. If the sheer volume and time crunch made for hasty analysis, then perhaps it may have been higher. As for evidence, I presume that will come — though part of the challenge is to throw out every PA ballot received after 8:00 on Election Day. If that’s successful, then what need is there to analyze or present findings? My post referred to human error, system failure, AND failure to adhere to State laws. In my mind, this has little to do with Trump. It could be the other way around, and I would let the challenge go on. As was stated earlier, what’s the harm in it if it turns out that everything is up-and-up? The reverse is: who benefits if something went wrong and it isn’t found out? Not you and me. Not now, not in the future.

What you describe are a large part of the complaints (I also added an edit to my post while you were responding). People focus solely on fraud, but there’s a lot more that goes into it. A lot of human error. Including whether state laws were properly followed. You may be fluent in research. Do you ever think “system 1.0” is ever as good as it should be? It is easy to see that this particular election in certain places (places that have historically voted in person) is very different. Now I agree that if the Trump team had proof they’d (1) better get on with showing it, and (2) better have really solid proof. And if they do and he loses like it is probable, then fine. They’ve got more information than you or me, and they’ve got the right to present their proof. I’d add that if there was widespread irregularity, then they have an obligation to bring it to light for the sake of future elections.

Trump and everyone associated with him needs to be steamrollered out of D.C. now. Not January 20. Four years was enough. Sort of. States have had longstanding systems in place. Normally you’d be right. This time around seems a lot different. I think 1/3 of Pennsylvania’s votes were mail-in. These are not robots voting. These are not robots handling. These are not robots verifying. And everyone is new to the game. And I believe there’s a difference between tallying the vote and auditing the results. Most times, an audit isn’t necessary.

Twitter does nothing of the sort. Their red warning is proof.

Here’s what you’re likely to encounter around here with your post: “Take your reasonable, thought out remarks and shove them, Nazi Trumphole!”

Win what? There's a prize to win here, or does everyone get a participation medal? Why tune out and push away opposing voices here if you're going to try to mock the "controlled environment" elsewhere?

Thank God that the Jests are off this week. I get the game!! And I know I'm in the minority, but I love the 4:00 Sunday game, especially when the sun goes down early.

Why does anyone around here still care about this? You want him banned from here again?

Crossfire Hurricane and Mueller say hello again.

This exchange started with me quoting shoshin and responding to shoshin. Unless you're shoshin, you jumped in and quoted me. Try to follow along. I know it is really difficult for you.

What anger and hatred are going to fill your life once Trump is out of office? You've got 70,000,000 people to choose from. You going to cancel them all in your little hate-filled mind? I'd ask you WTF are "leaving papers", but I have quickly lost interest in anything you have to say. Don't bother answering.

Sure, with regard to troll farms , etc. But Twitter chose the "damned if you do" approach. And their treatment is not limited to Trump or his family. It appears to be aimed at regular reporters and anyone *not* saying that Biden is the 46th President. And like I have said, Biden will likely be the 46th, but it isn't settled yet, and if Twitter is going with the "damned if you do" approach, then they should apply their rule to every tweet aimed at the election results.

My "lame" comment was referring to Twitter's editorializing.

@oldmanfan He did it again!!

The only reason Clinton didn't concede that night is because she wasn't in any condition to do so (it's been reported).

@oldmanfan This proves my point.

Because Clinton conceded the next day. And if she didn't then she would have had the right to challenge.

Read better. I wasn't talking about Trump. Nothing in that post was Trump. The subject was whether people from both sides can come together. The subject had nothing to do with Trump. What are you going to do when Trump is gone?

Really? Which government agency has certified any election result? Which state has? My point is that while highly improbable, it is Trump's right to challenge. My point is that everyone who tweets this gets Twitter's red font. It only cuts one way. Everyone who tweets that Biden is the next president gets a pass. 100% Lame.

Nice thoughts. I trend like Skynrd in my beliefs. And it is extremely difficult to come together when the last 4+ years have been filled with being labeled with every stupid, wrong-headed accusation in the book. This just for discussing the policies of the Administration and not dismissing them out-of-hand because it was felt that there wasn't enough Trump hatred. It started with deplorables, then we went through Putin loving traitors, then Nazis, racists, mysogynists, evil, stupid, cult members. No discussion was to be had. None. Couldn't legitimize Trump in any way. That was the strategy. Before I get accused, again, of all these things I will repeat that I never voted for Trump. But to have a thread like this, calling for Trump supporters to be "good" losers (when the results of the election has not yet been certified in any single state in this Union) is absolutely laughable. The riot plans and plywood was put up for Biden voters. Even now, anyone not hating Trump enough but just willing to wait and see what's going to happen is dismissed as a conspiracist. It was just fine when Hillary Clinton advised Joe Biden not to concede the election. But when Trump exercises his RIGHT to contest the results; and when (I think) at least two states are doing automatic re-counts, that's where the line gets drawn? And even with all that said, it would be Republicans -- who have been shamelessly vilified; and Trump voters (over 70,000,000 of them) who will be the only ones mature enough to work together with the other side (with exceptions to this rule, obviously). Crossfire Hurricane and Mueller say hello.