Trump supporters...please show class. Don't be sore losers...

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, snafu said:

 

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.

 

 

 

Let me ask you this.  Knowing there are more mail ins, do you think states with higher mail in are being more careful analyzing those ballots?  Logic would suggest so.  Neither of us know for sure of course, but again all states have methods to validate before they finalize their submissions.  I din’t Doubt there will be some errors here and there, but you would need a monumental number of individual errors or some giant systemic flaw to change results in states where the winner has tens of thousands more votes.

 

Also,  I am not sure you can say Trump’s team has more info, because at this point they have not presented any claim in court that supports that.

[shoshin]

7 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

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.

 

 

Then why aren't showing it in court with a hot and pressing urgency to do so?

[oldmanfan]

Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Perhaps it’s semantics, but unless I’m misreading you, you’re advocating for ‘trust the state’ . 
 

If a candidate doesn’t trust the state, and you’re suggestion is to forgo aggressive action in search of the truth, it boils down to acquiesce and submit.  You are absolutely correct—those were my words describing what I see as your position, not yours.  
 

I stand by the characterization, but apologies if you felt I was quoting you verbatim. 

If you are not going to trust the state elections, many of which are run by Republicans in those that Trump lost, then what do you suggest?  Recounting by who and to what purpose?

 

We have an electoral system that has worked for centuries.  Why are so many now wanting to upset the apple cart because Trump decided in advance there was no way he could lose?  He lost.  The vote will be finalized, certified, and we’ll move on.

[snafu]

8 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Let me ask you this.  Knowing there are more mail ins, do you think states with higher mail in are being more careful analyzing those ballots?  Logic would suggest so.  Neither of us know for sure of course, but again all states have methods to validate before they finalize their submissions.  I din’t Doubt there will be some errors here and there, but you would need a monumental number of individual errors or some giant systemic flaw to change results in states where the winner has tens of thousands more votes.

 

Also,  I am not sure you can say Trump’s team has more info, because at this point they have not presented any claim in court that supports that.

 

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.

 

 

[jrober38]

11 minutes ago, shoshin said:

 

Then why aren't showing it in court with a hot and pressing urgency to do so?

 

They have no evidence. All of their lawsuits have been laughed out of court.

 

Their angle today is to avoid the courts (where they'll lose) and try their case in the court of public opinion. The right wing is claiming that because the election suffered from wide scale fraud (again, no proof) that the election results in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia need to be thrown out completely. The state legislatures in each state need to refuse to certify the results because of rampant fraud (no evidence) and toss the results out entirely.

 

Under that scenario, no one reaches 270, and the US House of Reps chooses the next president based off a delegates system in which the majority of Reps in each state determines who chooses the delegate. In that scenario the GOP holds  28-22 advantage.

 

If Trump heads out and starts holding rallies next week, this is what they'll be pursuing. The end of democracy. Throwing out legit election results solely based off them not liking the outcome and they'll essentially be trying to install Trump as a dictator, in power against the will of the people. 

[oldmanfan]

20 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

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.

 

 

Then let me ask you this.  Did you have the same opinion in 2016?  2012? 2008?  1960?  Pick a year.  We have a legal election this year with voters who voted legally, whose votes were counted, and one candidate won fairly convincingly.

 

There have been much closer elections than this, and we did not have the fuss we see this year.  The only reason we have so this year is the loser is not mature enough to accept the outcome.

Edited November 12, 2020 by oldmanfan

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

You don’t understand research.  In research you make a hypothesis to explain an observation and you then experimentally test your hypothesis.  And then analyze the data obtained by appropriate statistical methodology.  But here is the key thing:  You are always testing the null hypothesis; I.e. that there is no effect.  You are assuming an effect.  That’s wrong.

 

What you are calling to be done is exactly what the states do to validate their outcomes via audits and such.  I see no resistance from anyone to do so.  What people are saying is simply this:  all the states have said their elections were carried out consistent with their laws and procedures, and that there is no reason to suspect the outcomes.  They will validate because that is part of their procedure.  

 

And again, you are assuming there is in fact some egregious error with absolutely no data to back it up.  You have a conclusion in your mind and want to bend circumstances to fit your pre-made conclusion.  I hope you don’t do that for your clients.

Where did I say acquiesce and submit?  That’s crap and you know better.  I specifically stated that the states have processes to audit and verify final results and they will do so.  

 

 

I do understand.  Maybe you are not as familiar with business and system process implementation as its not really the wheelhouse of data scientists.  Any new process has errors consistent with failure to conform to system specifications.   I've never seen a system or process work at 100% to conformance to specifications on day one.  If you have then you're the first. 

 

This entire mass mail in ballot (we've had some form of limited absentee and mail in ballots before) is new and quickly defined.   Let's look at PA. The vote stands at 49.7% for Biden and 49.1% for Trump.  You're going to suggest the error rate here either by unintentional or intentional counting is less than 1%?  I call BS on that.  

 

We can agree to disagree.  You can claim the higher ground all you want, and also suggest the state did its job correctly.  But you have no more proof of this than I do unless you were present and observing the activity.  As a scientist you should have an innate skepticism.  And these people managing and acting in the process are not machines or logical instructions.   This is not a controlled research environment.   This is a process with a lot of moving parts.  A lot of opportunities for errors.  People have motivations and skills that we have no ability to assess or quantify.  You're assuming they did their job to the letter and intent of the process.  But affidits and sworn statements along with video evidence and documented instances of process violations should be enough to require a credible recount where the margin of victory is .6%.  This margin seems well within a reasonable threshold to order a recount without hesitation and without any actions to contest the count.  That seems like a reasonable thing in the world's greatest democracy.  .

 

Like I said at the beginning.  Why be afraid of a recount?  If it confirms the original outcome then case closed and we move on.  If not then we need to apply pressure and put more scrutiny on the players and actors in the process.  Let's cut to the chase here too.  The fear among the resistance to a recount is a recount might alter the outcome they desire.     

 

 

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I do understand.  Maybe you are not as familiar with business and system process implementation as its not really the wheelhouse of data scientists.  Any new process has errors consistent with failure to conform to system specifications.   I've never seen a system or process work at 100% to conformance to specifications on day one.  If you have then you're the first. 

 

This entire mass mail in ballot (we've had some form of limited absentee and mail in ballots before) is new and quickly defined.   Let's look at PA. The vote stands at 49.7% for Biden and 49.1% for Trump.  You're going to suggest the error rate here either by unintentional or intentional counting is less than 1%?  I call BS on that.  

 

We can agree to disagree.  You can claim the higher ground all you want, and also suggest the state did its job correctly.  But you have no more proof of this than I do unless you were present and observing the activity.  As a scientist you should have an innate skepticism.  And these people managing and acting in the process are not machines or logical instructions.   This is not a controlled research environment.   This is a process with a lot of moving parts.  A lot of opportunities for errors.  People have motivations and skills that we have no ability to assess or quantify.  You're assuming they did their job to the letter and intent of the process.  But affidits and sworn statements along with video evidence and documented instances of process violations should be enough to require a credible recount where the margin of victory is .6%.  This margin seems well within a reasonable threshold to order a recount without hesitation and without any actions to contest the count.  That seems like a reasonable thing in the world's greatest democracy.  .

 

Like I said at the beginning.  Why be afraid of a recount?  If it confirms the original outcome then case closed and we move on.  If not then we need to apply pressure and put more scrutiny on the players and actors in the process.  Let's cut to the chase here too.  The fear among the resistance to a recount is a recount might alter the outcome they desire.     

 

 

You absolutely refuse to accept that states have methods to audit and certify results.  What you are calling for is what the states do before finalizing counts.  

 

So if you don’t trust the states to do their job, who should?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

If you are not going to trust the state elections, many of which are run by Republicans in those that Trump lost, then what do you suggest?  Recounting by who and to what purpose?

 

We have an electoral system that has worked for centuries.  Why are so many now wanting to upset the apple cart because Trump decided in advance there was no way he could lose?  He lost.  The vote will be finalized, certified, and we’ll move on.

I enjoy reading your thoughts, you’re rational and dialed in for a geezer. 
 

I suggest we allow the candidate to pursue legal options where they see evidence of fraud or problems with votes counted.  

 

I’m not advocating for upsetting any apple cart, I’m actually advocating for ensuring the apple cart is roadworthy, tuned up and that apples were dropped or thrown off the cart along certain stretches of road, we pick em up and/or take them back from the people who grabbed em. 
 

I remain uncertain as to what exactly upsets you about the process DJT is following.  Are you suggesting what he’s doing is illegal?  Unconstitutional?  Should this issue make it to the Supreme Court—are you concerned the justices will overturn a lawfully decided election?  
 

In you prior post, you used the term logic to describe the/a process a state might follow with mail in votes.  I’ve worked with and around the state of NY for 36 years, and logical is a term I’d rarely use with regard to the mechanisms in our particular state.  Off the top of my head:

 

 

 A friend in the waste management business contracted with the state to do a large hazmat cleanup near the Mohawk River on an emergency basis. The agreed upon fee was $450k +/-.   When the work was completed, the logical folks at the state dodged and delayed payment by approximately 13 months, forcing this small family owned company to the brink of financial ruin. 

 

An employee had withholding issues for childcare.  I was required to withhold and submit monies he claimed were not due because the state was always about 90 days behind the curve on processing his contribution (I believed him, but that irrelevant).  I withheld as ordered under threat of substantial penalty, received a letter 90 days later threatening me further with civil penalty. When I inquired and provided proof of payment, I was told payment was credited to his personal account because I had not used a business check with a name like “McDonalds or Burger King”.

 

During the early days of the pandemic, the Governor orders that landlords across the state discontinue attempts to collect rent and or evictions.  He says “as for the landlords, trust us, we’ll take care of you down the road”.  Still waiting, though property and school tax are due to the king, I’m sorry, government under threat of civil penalty and worse. 
 

The former governor of the State of NY was run out of office when it was discovered he was engaging in solicitation of prostitution, and perhaps wire fraud and interstate trafficking.  No criminal action was filed. 
 

Two extraordinarily powerful state senators-Joe Bruno and Sheldon Silver, both ousted from office in shame over corruption and influence peddling.  Andrew Cuomo’s right hand man was arrested on similar charges.  A former head of the states crown jewel, SUNY Poly, used his influence and position of authority in a bid-rigging scheme. 
 

The former AG of the state, a kick ass law and order type, well he gets booted because it turns out he had a major cocaine problem and liked to bash his women around as foreplay.  On a local radio show, the capital beat reporter from the local paper says that the cocaine issue was well-known for quite a while.  That leaves me wondering why the local newspaper, an institution for truth and justice chose not to run a story about the law and order guy purchasing and consuming illegal drugs. 
 

A friend of mine owns a business in a nearby city, buys a building with the intent to restore it and improve the neighborhood.  Local building inspector comes by, tells him he doesn’t like the brand new, in the plans submitted to the city sheetrock job in the main office and says it needs to be removed and replaced.  Cost will be around $5k.  Inspector continues, though by the way, I know your business is _______ , and I have an issue that maybe you can help with.  What if I came by Saturday and you helped me out and we leave the office as it is?”.

 

It is a well-known and established fact that NYS is awash in corruption and graft.  It’s not a D or R thing exclusively, but it surely is a D thing. I have a friend who is the former head of a very large state agency , is politically connected and has spoken at length with me about these issues. 
 

Logic has nothing to do with it.  People are people, corruption is a thing, and I believe 100% that you absolutely, positively with certainty cannot trust that people did the right thing.  
 

 

 

. 

[jrober38]

3 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I do understand.  Maybe you are not as familiar with business and system process implementation as its not really the wheelhouse of data scientists.  Any new process has errors consistent with failure to conform to system specifications.   I've never seen a system or process work at 100% to conformance to specifications on day one.  If you have then you're the first. 

 

This entire mass mail in ballot (we've had some form of limited absentee and mail in ballots before) is new and quickly defined.   Let's look at PA. The vote stands at 49.7% for Biden and 49.1% for Trump.  You're going to suggest the error rate here either by unintentional or intentional counting is less than 1%?  I call BS on that.  

 

We can agree to disagree.  You can claim the higher ground all you want, and also suggest the state did its job correctly.  But you have no more proof of this than I do unless you were present and observing the activity.  As a scientist you should have an innate skepticism.  And these people managing and acting in the process are not machines or logical instructions.   This is not a controlled research environment.   This is a process with a lot of moving parts.  A lot of opportunities for errors.  People have motivations and skills that we have no ability to assess or quantify.  You're assuming they did their job to the letter and intent of the process.  But affidits and sworn statements along with video evidence and documented instances of process violations should be enough to require a credible recount where the margin of victory is .6%.  This margin seems well within a reasonable threshold to order a recount without hesitation and without any actions to contest the count.  That seems like a reasonable thing in the world's greatest democracy.  .

 

Like I said at the beginning.  Why be afraid of a recount?  If it confirms the original outcome then case closed and we move on.  If not then we need to apply pressure and put more scrutiny on the players and actors in the process.  Let's cut to the chase here too.  The fear among the resistance to a recount is a recount might alter the outcome they desire.     

 

 

 

This isn't really true.

 

There are multiple people watching the counting of mail in or absentee ballots, and for each ballot that gets counted there are adjudicators from both sides to make sure ballots are being counted correctly and that improper ballots are discarded. On top of that, there are poll watchers surveying the count to make sure it's run properly. 

 

No one is afraid of recounts. On average recounts move a state level vote about 200 votes one way or the other. Biden's lead across the swing states is far beyond the level of a recount changing any of the outcomes. 

The issue is that the Trump administration is not allowing Biden's team to begin the transition of power in the middle of a pandemic, with cases, hospitalizations and deaths spiking across the country again. 

[oldmanfan]

2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I enjoy reading your thoughts, you’re rational and dialed in for a geezer. 
 

I suggest we allow the candidate to pursue legal options where they see evidence of fraud or problems with votes counted.  

 

I’m not advocating for upsetting any apple cart, I’m actually advocating for ensuring the apple cart is roadworthy, tuned up and that apples were dropped or thrown off the cart along certain stretches of road, we pick em up and/or take them back from the people who grabbed em. 
 

I remain uncertain as to what exactly upsets you about the process DJT is following.  Are you suggesting what he’s doing is illegal?  Unconstitutional?  Should this issue make it to the Supreme Court—are you concerned the justices will overturn a lawfully decided election?  
 

In you prior post, you used the term logic to describe the/a process a state might follow with mail in votes.  I’ve worked with and around the state of NY for 36 years, and logical is a term I’d rarely use with regard to the mechanisms in our particular state.  Off the top of my head:

 

 

 A friend in the waste management business contracted with the state to do a large hazmat cleanup near the Mohawk River on an emergency basis. The agreed upon fee was $450k +/-.   When the work was completed, the logical folks at the state dodged and delayed payment by approximately 13 months, forcing this small family owned company to the brink of financial ruin. 

 

An employee had withholding issues for childcare.  I was required to withhold and submit monies he claimed were not due because the state was always about 90 days behind the curve on processing his contribution (I believed him, but that irrelevant).  I withheld as ordered under threat of substantial penalty, received a letter 90 days later threatening me further with civil penalty. When I inquired and provided proof of payment, I was told payment was credited to his personal account because I had not used a business check with a name like “McDonalds or Burger King”.

 

During the early days of the pandemic, the Governor orders that landlords across the state discontinue attempts to collect rent and or evictions.  He says “as for the landlords, trust us, we’ll take care of you down the road”.  Still waiting, though property and school tax are due to the king, I’m sorry, government under threat of civil penalty and worse. 
 

The former governor of the State of NY was run out of office when it was discovered he was engaging in solicitation of prostitution, and perhaps wire fraud and interstate trafficking.  No criminal action was filed. 
 

Two extraordinarily powerful state senators-Joe Bruno and Sheldon Silver, both ousted from office in shame over corruption and influence peddling.  Andrew Cuomo’s right hand man was arrested on similar charges.  A former head of the states crown jewel, SUNY Poly, used his influence and position of authority in a bid-rigging scheme. 
 

The former AG of the state, a kick ass law and order type, well he gets booted because it turns out he had a major cocaine problem and liked to bash his women around as foreplay.  On a local radio show, the capital beat reporter from the local paper says that the cocaine issue was well-known for quite a while.  That leaves me wondering why the local newspaper, an institution for truth and justice chose not to run a story about the law and order guy purchasing and consuming illegal drugs. 
 

A friend of mine owns a business in a nearby city, buys a building with the intent to restore it and improve the neighborhood.  Local building inspector comes by, tells him he doesn’t like the brand new, in the plans submitted to the city sheetrock job in the main office and says it needs to be removed and replaced.  Cost will be around $5k.  Inspector continues, though by the way, I know your business is _______ , and I have an issue that maybe you can help with.  What if I came by Saturday and you helped me out and we leave the office as it is?”.

 

It is a well-known and established fact that NYS is awash in corruption and graft.  It’s not a D or R thing exclusively, but it surely is a D thing. I have a friend who is the former head of a very large state agency , is politically connected and has spoken at length with me about these issues. 
 

Logic has nothing to do with it.  People are people, corruption is a thing, and I believe 100% that you absolutely, positively with certainty cannot trust that people did the right thing.  
 

 

 

. 

My concern is that this challenge will lead to a dictatorship.  That the challenge will turn into something where state legislatures, because if their irrational fear of the incumbent, will seek to overturn the will of the people that elected Biden.  And we can pack in the entire foundations of our country.

 

I agree governmental agencies can screw up.  But there simply is no evidence to suggest that tens of thousands of votes should be overturned, and despite the protests of the losing side none has been presented.

[jrober38]

4 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

My concern is that this challenge will lead to a dictatorship.  That the challenge will turn into something where state legislatures, because if their irrational fear of the incumbent, will seek to overturn the will of the people that elected Biden.  And we can pack in the entire foundations of our country.

 

I agree governmental agencies can screw up.  But there simply is no evidence to suggest that tens of thousands of votes should be overturned, and despite the protests of the losing side none has been presented.

 

Exactly, Trump and the far right are beginning to yell and scream about having legit election results thrown out because they don't like the outcome. They scream about widespread fraud but have yet to show a shred of proof to support their claims. 

 

If he's successful, the US as we know it will cease to exist and will become a dictatorship, because at that point why would there even be an elections in the future? Just forego the democratic process entirely because god forbid the result isn't what the dictator wanted them to be. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

9 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

My concern is that this challenge will lead to a dictatorship.  That the challenge will turn into something where state legislatures, because if their irrational fear of the incumbent, will seek to overturn the will of the people that elected Biden.  And we can pack in the entire foundations of our country.

 

I agree governmental agencies can screw up.  But there simply is no evidence to suggest that tens of thousands of votes should be overturned, and despite the protests of the losing side none has been presented.

Well if it’s just about your feelings, acknowledged, but we’re wasting time here.  If the will of the people is made clear to everyone, Biden will be president. Then, unfortunately, the opposition party sets about destroying him and his family.  It’s the game and we have to give him credit, he has played it well. 
 

I’m not suggesting that the people in government “screw up”, I’m pointing to evidence of corruption, of people in power doing the things powerful people do, and one of the most glaring reasons I personally reject your Easter Bunny vision of our process. 
 

I can’t believe I forgot a couple other biggies.  

Obama rat-&$#@ing bond holders of GM, creating a presidential class of winners and losers and destroying the lives of folks who propped up the company while enriching others. 
 

The Congress impeaching a President for attempting to shakedown the Ukrainian government in hearsay evidence and what someone says they think they heard from a friend of a friend.  The Congress validating a VP shaking down a foreign ally and bragging about it to the assembled masses, on tape. 

Many of us on the other side of this debate feel exactly the same as you do about dynasties and power hungry f$#@sticks and people who want to tell the world who might be black and who is not.  Your feelings are no more valid than ours.  Again, the day before the election, modern dem leadership was shrieking about not conceding the election if it went south. 
 

I’m happy to acknowledge the election was crystal clean and no meanies were involved if that proves to be the case.  Until then, let’s see what happens. 

 

17 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Exactly, Trump and the far right are beginning to yell and scream about having legit election results thrown out because they don't like the outcome. They scream about widespread fraud but have yet to show a shred of proof to support their claims. 

 

If he's successful, the US as we know it will cease to exist and will become a dictatorship, because at that point why would there even be an elections in the future? Just forego the democratic process entirely because god forbid the result isn't what the dictator wanted them to be. 

There’s no one screaming because a legit election took place. No one. If Trump prevails at the SC, will you concede the battle was worth it? 

[jrober38]

11 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

There’s no one screaming because a legit election took place. No one. If Trump prevails at the SC, will you concede the battle was worth it? 

 

He's not going to get to the Supreme Court. That's why he keeps screaming garbage on Twitter. 

For that to happen, he needs to actually win a court case at a lower level, which has yet to happen.

 

Until they come up with some actual fraud, particularly on a level that could overturn the result, this will never get anywhere close to the SC.

Edited November 12, 2020 by jrober38

[oldmanfan]

8 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Well if it’s just about your feelings, acknowledged, but we’re wasting time here.  If the will of the people is made clear to everyone, Biden will be president. Then, unfortunately, the opposition party sets about destroying him and his family.  It’s the game and we have to give him credit, he has played it well. 
 

I’m not suggesting that the people in government “screw up”, I’m pointing to evidence of corruption, of people in power doing the things powerful people do, and one of the most glaring reasons I personally reject your Easter Bunny vision of our process. 
 

I can’t believe I forgot a couple other biggies.  

Obama rat-&$#@ing bond holders of GM, creating a presidential class of winners and losers and destroying the lives of folks who propped up the company while enriching others. 
 

The Congress impeaching a President for attempting to shakedown the Ukrainian government in hearsay evidence and what someone says they think they heard from a friend of a friend.  The Congress validating a VP shaking down a foreign ally and bragging about it to the assembled masses, on tape. 

Many of us on the other side of this debate feel exactly the same as you do about dynasties and power hungry f$#@sticks and people who want to tell the world who might be black and who is not.  Your feelings are no more valid than ours.  Again, the day before the election, modern dem leadership was shrieking about not conceding the election if it went south. 
 

I’m happy to acknowledge the election was crystal clean and no meanies were involved if that proves to be the case.  Until then, let’s see what happens. 

 

There’s no one screaming because a legit election took place. No one. If Trump prevails at the SC, will you concede the battle was worth it? 

The Congress did not verify a shakedown by Biden as you put it.  The committee chaired by Sen Johnson found nothing to substantiate your claim.  For all your protestations otherwise, this post simply shows you want Trump to win at any cost, including the destruction of the democratic principles on which our country was founded.

 

When he said Article Two gives him the power to do anything he wants, I assume you agreed?

[TBBills]

3 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Well, first tell me how I'm wrong don't just say I'm wrong and leave it at that.  That doesn't qualify as a rebuttal.  Here's where I'm coming from on this.  First I don't care who won let's get that straight right away.  

 

I have about 25 years experience managing and participating in development and roll-outs of business and technical projects and processes on an enterprise scale.  As well as several years experience in my current job managing a data analytics organization.  I know business and technical systems and statistics and analytics.  I've worked in the public sector in state government and in the private sector for both large and small companies.  In the private sector some of my clients have been government agencies and organizations.  I know from experience and facts that no matter how good and thorough you are there are always quality and performance issues when rolling out a process or an application.  I know from facts there is no process that exists that has a zero error rate.  I'm well versed in process and quality principals like 6-sigma.  So when it comes to processes and data and statistics I can claim expert status.       

 

So here's the thing.  Every process has a positive error rate.  Some might be close to zero like defense or aerospace applications or medical procedures but they are not zero.  So there is no process defined by humans that has a zero error rate.  And throw in the facts the mail in ballot was quickly defined and deployed using the COVID outbreak as justification.  And then throw in the fact it was designed and deployed by non-scientific government organization(s) and I can say with confidence the error rate is high.  How high?  My educated guess is between 12 and 15 percent.  But everyone that knows close to nothing about processes and statistics can go on believing the error rate is zero or near zero.  Its their fundamental right to be ill-informed and oblivious to reality.  Its their right to cheer on a potentially incorrect result.   

 

So it comes down to this.  Its a 100% certainty this mail in ballot process has a high error rate.  High enough to alter the result?  I don't know, nobody knows.  But if there's nothing to hide then why worry about a recount?  Why all the protests about having a recount?  If it doesn't matter and won't alter the result then let the Trump campaign spend the funds to bankroll the recounts.  If its a waste of time its their time not yours.  What do you care?  You're so sure its all legitimate so there's nothing to lose, right?  If everything is on the up-and-up then why isn't the Biden camp endorsing and encouraging these recounts?  After all, that will put to rest all claims of impropriety and the country can move forward knowing the results were fair.  It all seems like a small price to pay in order to achieve some degree of unity.

 

To summarize the Biden campaign and the DNC (and the MSM that suppresses any questioning of the result) have a lot of smart people working for them.  They know the same things I do and more about the details of the count and what went down in several key states.  They know its BS.  They know there's a high number of invalid votes/data records that passed the quality test of the process because the process was not functioning to spec or the users (the vote counters) did not perform their function correctly.  They are all lying out of simple self-interest.  They have no concern for the legitimacy of the voting process only the results.  And anyone that thinks the result is more important than the process of democracy is traveling down a dangerous path.  If you disagree with me you should re-think your position.  You should be careful what you wish for.

It was all answered in the post after mine. Also the part of people wanting evidence is b.c the Trump party themselves say they HAVE evidence which hurts your argument even more on saying "Need to recount to find evidence" 

 

 

They will recount but you NEED evidence to make a claim saying fraud, you cannot go by hearsay. Which is why the past 3 days the courts have been shutting down any of Trump's lawyers attempts on saying fraud.

Edited November 12, 2020 by TBBills

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

12 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

He's not going to get to the Supreme Court. That's why he keeps screaming garbage on Twitter. 

For that to happen, he needs to actually win a court case at a lower level, which has yet to happen.

 

Until they come up with some actual fraud, particularly on a level that could overturn the result, this will never get anywhere close to the SC.

And you may be right, but you’re claiming something is decided that isn’t decided, and suggesting people want to overturn a legitimate and uncontested election when we both know that not to be true.  I’m just taking the let’s pretend game out. 
 

If Trump prevails and picks up EC votes in large enough numbers to win re-election, you will accept it, yes? 
If the matter ends up at the SC and Trump prevails, you will accept it, yes?  We can assume you will if it’s a 9-0 victory, as would I, but let’s assume it’s a party line vote. 
 

I will accept that the will of the people should it play out in either of the above scenarios. 

[shoshin]

3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

And you may be right, but you’re claiming something is decided that isn’t decided, and suggesting people want to overturn a legitimate and uncontested election when we both know that not to be true.  I’m just taking the let’s pretend game out. 
 

If Trump prevails and picks up EC votes in large enough numbers to win re-election, you will accept it, yes? 

 

Yes. The evidence so far is nil. 

 

3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

If the matter ends up at the SC and Trump prevails, you will accept it, yes?  We can assume you will if it’s a 9-0 victory, as would I, but let’s assume it’s a party line vote. 
 

I will accept that the will of the people should it play out in either of the above scenarios. 

 

What would happen with the Supreme Court? There's no case pending anywhere that would overturn a single state, let alone an election. Many states will certify their results in the next 10 days. Tick tock to find tens of thousands of fraudulent votes. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

16 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

The Congress did not verify a shakedown by Biden as you put it.  The committee chaired by Sen Johnson found nothing to substantiate your claim.  For all your protestations otherwise, this post simply shows you want Trump to win at any cost, including the destruction of the democratic principles on which our country was founded.

 

When he said Article Two gives him the power to do anything he wants, I assume you agreed?

You sir, are wrong, and the attempt to vilify me is uncalled for.  I’ve said multiple times what I think will happen, who will prevail and who will lose, and that pursuing legal remedy is the American way just like it was in Gore Bush.

 

The tent pole of your response in opposition is that you’re worried.  I’m no less worried, and that’s why legal remedy is such an important aspect of our republic. 
 

I am not at all about DJT winning at all costs, I never have been. While I’m concerned about a Biden ticket, green new deals, a move away from energy independence, defunding the police and elevating criminals to martyr status, I have long recognized that my fellow citizens may have no such concern.  I’ve been prepared for this for 4 years, and am prepared to weather the coming storm.  I have no interest in unity under the terms dictated, but that’s my right as an American.  It’s not unlike the fact that my fellow citizens may well vote for a candidate intent on substantially increasing my tax burden while reducing theirs.  I’m a patriot, I gladly pay my taxes but for those who pitch some perverted of the ever increasing fair share, that isn’t unity, that’s a shakedown. 
 

One of the challenges in Washington is the level of influence peddling and nepotism present.  Again, in normal times, I think pretty much everyone knows this.  Suddenly however, we’ve got the cleanest government in fathers history of fa-Evah.   My thought is that if you went down the list of senators involved in the hearing, a minimum of 80% have undertaken similar projects for friends and family and run the risk of mutually assured destruction should one or the other is targeted.  
 

See, I’m a realist.  I don’t think Biden did anything that we haven’t done throughout the history of the country.  I’d think McConnell, Graham, Romney, Feinstein and the rest run similar deals.  I think Presidents do this sort of thing all the time, we shape nations in the image we want and $$$$ is the key.  
 

I think the difference was Trump.  He’s not been in Washington for 15, 20, 40 years and has no skin in that game.  So, a second political witch-hunt that goes nowhere is launched, believers in fairy tales and the innate goodness of politicians like yourself look at something like this and say “Well, what Trump did was wrong because nothing happened to Biden”.  
 

I only judged what I saw inconjuction with the impeachment that was undertaken that went nowhere. Meanwhile, more independent leaning folks hear about phony charges and impeachment, serial rapists and Russian treason.  
 

I’ll ask differently.  With what you saw Biden doing, in conjunction with his sons interests in the country, troubling on any level to you?  In conjunction with that question, given the Senate’s decision to disregard the impeachment vote as a political ploy, was the impeachment debacle good for unit and harmony? 
 

Btw, was Obama’s decision to incinerate the personal wealth of GM Bondholders an act of Presidential decorum or the act of someone with dictatorial aspirations?  I’m well aware you may not be an Obama supporter, but wondering your thoughts. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

25 minutes ago, shoshin said:

 

Yes. The evidence so far is nil. 

 

 

What would happen with the Supreme Court? There's no case pending anywhere that would overturn a single state, let alone an election. Many states will certify their results in the next 10 days. Tick tock to find tens of thousands of fraudulent votes. 

Prior to Gore Bush there was no hanging chad. 
 

I’m going to assume you would accept the results in this admittedly fanciful discussion.  I’m assuming that’s the case because you previously acknowledged your willingness to accept the outcome if Trump prevails.  That is honorable and you should be commended. 

[Westside]

47 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Prior to Gore Bush there was no hanging chad. 
 

I’m going to assume you would accept the results in this admittedly fanciful discussion.  I’m assuming that’s the case because you previously acknowledged your willingness to accept the outcome if Trump prevails.  That is honorable and you should be commended. 

Don't hold your breath. He is anything but honorable. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 minutes ago, westside2 said:

Don't hold your breath. He is anything but honorable. 

I’m under no illusion I’m changing hearts and minds here.   I believe I’ve been civil in my replies, I try to explain my thought process and have been attacked by several posters for my political views.  That’s par for the course, and I certainly can handle it.  
 

That said I really don’t like passing up an opportunity to acknowledge when we have a meeting of the minds. 

[snafu]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Then let me ask you this.  Did you have the same opinion in 2016?  2012? 2008?  1960?  Pick a year.  We have a legal election this year with voters who voted legally, whose votes were counted, and one candidate won fairly convincingly.

 

There have been much closer elections than this, and we did not have the fuss we see this year.  The only reason we have so this year is the loser is not mature enough to accept the outcome.

 

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.

 

 

[WideNine]

3 hours ago, snafu said:

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

They actually do have machines that tally the ballots.

 

Had them since midterms, and spent a million on installing more for the election.

 

What the man overseeing election preparation in PA was not given was the ability to begin processing the mail-in ballots early. The state GOP legislature blocked those requests.

 

Hence the prediction of mail processing lag which Trump tried to crudely link to fraud was in fact manufactured by the GOP.

 

 

 

 

 

[snafu]

18 minutes ago, WideNine said:

 

They actually do have machines that tally the ballots.

 

Had them since midterms, and spent a million on installing more for the election.

 

What the man overseeing election preparation in PA was not given was the ability to begin processing the mail-in ballots early. The state GOP legislature blocked those requests.

 

Hence the prediction of mail processing lag which Trump tried to crudely link to fraud was in fact manufactured by the GOP.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

[snafu]

4 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Also,  I am not sure you can say Trump’s team has more info, because at this point they have not presented any claim in court that supports that.

 

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.

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

3 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

You absolutely refuse to accept that states have methods to audit and certify results.  What you are calling for is what the states do before finalizing counts.  

 

So if you don’t trust the states to do their job, who should?

Blind trust is the hallmark of simpletons and the easily duped.  
 

I’m a trust but verify guy. 

[WideNine]

5 hours ago, snafu said:

 

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 was trying to explain mostly how the lag was manufactured.

 

The GOP has always been about vote suppression. The GOP has spent millions looking for systemic voting fraud and have come up empty handed. Why do they tout the fraud they can never prove?

 

Forty years ago Paul Weyrich, the influential conservative strategist who founded the Heritage Foundation told evangelical leaders, “As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.” 

 

In 1982, the Republican National Committee came under a court-ordered consent decree prohibiting it from engaging in voter-intimidation tactics aimed at communities of color—tactics designed to deprive Blacks of their right to vote. The decree was updated after further attempts at intimidation in 1987, and again in 1990. Despite more violations in 2004, federal courts let the decree expire in 2017. Freed from the decree, the RNC has plans to recruit up to 15,000 poll watchers in key states to challenge voters they deem suspicious, precisely the tactics that led to the original court order. True, intimidation in an of itself even with folks surrounding polling centers sometimes carrying guns is not really denying people their right to vote; it merely scares them from doing so.

 

The same way when Trump was linking delays in mail-in ballots to fraud. If Trump supporters were smart enough to read more than Tweets they would see more clearly how politics work. It was clear to many in politics early on how the GOP was playing 3-D chess and working to stack the deck so they could falsely link mail-in voting as somehow fraught with fraud. This is misinformation to suppress the normal legitimate process of mail-in voting, but how to make it seem more real to their base?

 

Cripple the USPS prior to the election.

 

Obama's attempts to fill the many vacant USPS board positions were blocked for years by McConnell and the GOP Senate. As soon as Trump was elected they installed 5 GOP puppets into the USPS board - it was fast-tracked and the Deputy Postmaster General was forced out as they bypassed the government-approved process for interviewing and hiring a new Postmaster General and instead shoe-horned DeJoy into the role - an avid Trump supporter and mega-campaign donor.

 

DeJoy immediately set out to knee-cap the USPS prior to the election. First, creating a backlog of mail to be delivered by eliminating overtime and any extra routes while at the same time claiming in legal filings that leadership at the USPS were unable to meet the operational demands required by judges concerned about election mail impacts because they were more short-staffed due to Covid-19. So eliminate overtime and extra routes when you are short-staffed. It defies logic.

 

At the same time they fast-tracked the removal of mail sorting machines from collection centers that were disproportionately located in districts that voted for Clinton in 2016.

 

Many of the USPS workers acted in defiance of clear mandates that were illegal, they ran extra routes, they put in extra personal time to make up the difference. This is why they were being cheered by crowds. They stood up to protect the vote, they stood up against GOP vote suppression machinations removing ballot drop boxes, requiring third-party signature verifications, feckless lawsuits to have mailed in votes thrown out.

 

If the GOP want a recount in PA, they will likely have to pay for it out of pocket and they will find a few ballots that need to be tossed, out of millions of ballots cast this happens for both major parties every election, but they will not find enough to sway the results.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 12, 2020 by WideNine

[oldmanfan]

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You sir, are wrong, and the attempt to vilify me is uncalled for.  I’ve said multiple times what I think will happen, who will prevail and who will lose, and that pursuing legal remedy is the American way just like it was in Gore Bush.

 

The tent pole of your response in opposition is that you’re worried.  I’m no less worried, and that’s why legal remedy is such an important aspect of our republic. 
 

I am not at all about DJT winning at all costs, I never have been. While I’m concerned about a Biden ticket, green new deals, a move away from energy independence, defunding the police and elevating criminals to martyr status, I have long recognized that my fellow citizens may have no such concern.  I’ve been prepared for this for 4 years, and am prepared to weather the coming storm.  I have no interest in unity under the terms dictated, but that’s my right as an American.  It’s not unlike the fact that my fellow citizens may well vote for a candidate intent on substantially increasing my tax burden while reducing theirs.  I’m a patriot, I gladly pay my taxes but for those who pitch some perverted of the ever increasing fair share, that isn’t unity, that’s a shakedown. 
 

One of the challenges in Washington is the level of influence peddling and nepotism present.  Again, in normal times, I think pretty much everyone knows this.  Suddenly however, we’ve got the cleanest government in fathers history of fa-Evah.   My thought is that if you went down the list of senators involved in the hearing, a minimum of 80% have undertaken similar projects for friends and family and run the risk of mutually assured destruction should one or the other is targeted.  
 

See, I’m a realist.  I don’t think Biden did anything that we haven’t done throughout the history of the country.  I’d think McConnell, Graham, Romney, Feinstein and the rest run similar deals.  I think Presidents do this sort of thing all the time, we shape nations in the image we want and $$$$ is the key.  
 

I think the difference was Trump.  He’s not been in Washington for 15, 20, 40 years and has no skin in that game.  So, a second political witch-hunt that goes nowhere is launched, believers in fairy tales and the innate goodness of politicians like yourself look at something like this and say “Well, what Trump did was wrong because nothing happened to Biden”.  
 

I only judged what I saw inconjuction with the impeachment that was undertaken that went nowhere. Meanwhile, more independent leaning folks hear about phony charges and impeachment, serial rapists and Russian treason.  
 

I’ll ask differently.  With what you saw Biden doing, in conjunction with his sons interests in the country, troubling on any level to you?  In conjunction with that question, given the Senate’s decision to disregard the impeachment vote as a political ploy, was the impeachment debacle good for unit and harmony? 
 

Btw, was Obama’s decision to incinerate the personal wealth of GM Bondholders an act of Presidential decorum or the act of someone with dictatorial aspirations?  I’m well aware you may not be an Obama supporter, but wondering your thoughts. 

Good conversation.  Getting killed at work and will reply later today.

[snafu]

50 minutes ago, WideNine said:

The GOP has always been about vote suppression.

 

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.

 

[WideNine]

46 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

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.

 

 

A matter of scope - your example appears to be a schism in the ranks of the Dems that focused on purging a NYC DB of Dem votes that may have not been for Clinton.

 

Not sure if I would call that systemic, but it was definitely wrong. The same way the DNC emails outlined overt attempts to sideline Sanders during their primaries. The dilemma that the DNC found itself in back then, and continues through today, is that their far-left representatives or candidates from the Metro areas don't have a snowball's chance in hell challenging a GOP or moderate candidate's broader national base. But what they can do is essentially split or water down the DNC overall vote turnout for their primary winner.

 

Regarding systemic voter registration purging as a suppression mechanism:

 

The GOP has been partaking in Registration purges across the nation in more of an organized systemic fashion - not just an isolated schism within their own ranks.

• Georgia - purging nearly 200,000 valid voters from their registries.
• Sued Michigan to purge their voter registration DBs
• Sued to remove over 130,000 registered voters in Wisconsin
• Judicial Watch - A GOP legal effort towards registration purges across several Dem and swing states has wrongly misrepresented registration irregularities for most of the year citing more registered voters than those living in various areas as proof of fraud or allowing for voter fraud. Trump and other propaganda outlets have recycled that misinformation.

Judicial Watch’s claim rests on its inclusion of “inactive voters” – people who have been removed from active rolls after a mail ballot, voter guide or other official document was returned as undeliverable – usually as a result of moving. In most states including California they aren’t reflected in turnout tallies or signature-gathering requirements, don’t receive election materials, and are ignored by campaigns.

 

Inactive voters nevertheless underline Judicial Watch’s math suggesting that places like Los Angeles County has a registration rate of 112 percent, for example, or Stanislaus County has a registration rate of 102 percent. Their legal communication cites a “failure to maintain accurate, up-to-date voter registration lists. Bob Popper, director of Judicial Watch’s election integrity project, said California has failed to report its inactive voter data to the federal government as required by the National Voter Registration Act. Counties should be doing more to cull their inactive voter lists, he said.

 

“What we identified is a red flag, a sign of smoke,” he said, saying people could be voting multiple times or in more than one state. His premise is that inactive voters would receive a ballot and then be able to vote. I have heard this same premise taking Tweets and running with them on this board several times myself.

 

First - In fact, California did report the data. Its inactive voter tally of 5,065,746 at the time of last fall’s election is part of the most recent election administration and voting survey published by the federal Election Assistance Commission.

 

Also,  in the case of California, their National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) regulations state that although inactive voters remain on the rolls as registered voters who are eligible to vote, they do not receive “mailed election materials” (including mail-in ballots) and must “confirm residency at the polling place” in person in order to vote — standards that would severely limit or eliminate double-voting or the ability of third parties to fraudulently use inactive registrations to cast ballots.

 

 

Re: Judicial Watch

 

WIKI - Summary

 

Judicial Watch (JW) is an American conservative activist group[1] that files Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits to investigate claimed misconduct by government officials.

 

Founded in 1994, JW has primarily targeted Democrats, in particular the Presidency of Bill Clinton, the Presidency of Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. The organization has described climate science as "fraud science" and has filed lawsuits against government climate scientists. JW has made numerous false and unsubstantiated claims that have been picked up by right-wing news outlets and promoted by conservative figures. President Donald Trump has repeatedly cited false claims by Judicial Watch about voter fraud. Courts have dismissed the vast majority of its lawsuits.[2]

 

 

Edited November 12, 2020 by WideNine

[snafu]

3 minutes ago, WideNine said:

 

A matter of scope - your example appears to be a schism in the ranks of the Dems that focused on purging a NYC DB of Dem votes that may have not been for Clinton.

 

Not sure if I would call that systemic, but it was definitely wrong. The same way the DNC emails outlined overt attempts to sideline Sanders during their primaries. The dilemma that the DNC found itself in back then, and continues through today, is that their far-left representatives or candidates from the Metro areas don't have a snowball's chance in hell challenging a GOP or moderate candidate's broader national base. But what they can do is essentially split or water down the DNC overall vote turnout for their primary winner.

 

Regarding systemic voter registration purging as a suppression mechanism:

 

The GOP has been partaking in Registration purges across the nation in more of an organized systemic fashion - not just an isolated schism within their own ranks.

• Georgia - purging nearly 200,000 valid voters from their registries.
• Sued Michigan to purge their voter registration DBs
• Sued to remove over 130,000 registered voters in Wisconsin
• Judicial Watch - A GOP legal effort towards registration purges across several Dem and swing states has wrongly misrepresented registration irregularities for most of the year citing more registered voters than those living in various areas as proof of fraud or allowing for voter fraud. Trump and other propaganda outlets have recycled that misinformation.

Judicial Watch’s claim rests on its inclusion of “inactive voters” – people who have been removed from active rolls after a mail ballot, voter guide or other official document was returned as undeliverable – usually as a result of moving. In most states including California they aren’t reflected in turnout tallies or signature-gathering requirements, don’t receive election materials, and are ignored by campaigns.

 

Inactive voters nevertheless underline Judicial Watch’s math suggesting that places like Los Angeles County has a registration rate of 112 percent, for example, or Stanislaus County has a registration rate of 102 percent. Their legal communication cites a “failure to maintain accurate, up-to-date voter registration lists. Bob Popper, director of Judicial Watch’s election integrity project, said California has failed to report its inactive voter data to the federal government as required by the National Voter Registration Act. Counties should be doing more to cull their inactive voter lists, he said.

 

“What we identified is a red flag, a sign of smoke,” he said, saying people could be voting multiple times or in more than one state. His premise is that inactive voters would receive a ballot and then be able to vote. I have heard this same premise taking Tweets and running with them on this board several times myself.

 

First - In fact, California did report the data. Its inactive voter tally of 5,065,746 at the time of last fall’s election is part of the most recent election administration and voting survey published by the federal Election Assistance Commission.

 

Also,  in the case of California, their National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) regulations state that although inactive voters remain on the rolls as registered voters who are eligible to vote, they do not receive “mailed election materials” (including mail-in ballots) and must “confirm residency at the polling place” in person in order to vote — standards that would severely limit or eliminate double-voting or the ability of third parties to fraudulently use inactive registrations to cast ballots:

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WideNine]

3 hours ago, snafu said:

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The myth of stale voters, deceased voters, and non-citizen voters promoted by Judicial Watch I addressed above. Misinformation dangerously parroted to cast our US elections as fraudulent.

 

Political shenanigans aside our voting system is pretty resilient and resistant to systemic tampering of actual ballots as it is currently operated. As with any election that has millions of votes isolated incidents are inevitable, but I have yet to see an independent or GOP-funded study that leads to a conclusion of systemic voter fraud. It is the GOP-created myth around ballot integrity that is a dangerous effort to discourage voting and faith in our election commissions across the country.

 

Close vote counts should be recounted to verify results, larger margins have the option for GOP-funded recounts, our elections work but I will never be convinced that there is an equal effort to disenfranchise voters between the GOP and the Dems. That is patently false.

 

Only one of those groups has actually, factually been censured by our Supreme Court because of voter suppression tactics, the GOP.

 

Background of the Concent Decree that was initiated to censor the RNC from suppression tactics included in a 2016 DNC court filing:

 

Review the history of exactly what the GOP was censored from doing and ask yourself if they have not gone back to the same bag of tricks.

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/11-05-2016_Order.pdf

 

 

I agree with your premise regarding gerrymandering - both sides have partaken in it and there needs to be a better solution that has the overall effect of first simply limiting redistricting activity in general and secondly removing it from the hands of political representatives in that state. Another idea is to come up with a computer model or system based on a states census data that everyone uses whether they like what it draws or not.

 

What we have now, simply allows whatever party that is in control of the state's legislature to draw up ridiculous maps that favors their party and then leads to a myriad of lawsuits.

 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2020 by WideNine

[shoshin]

4 hours ago, snafu said:

 

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.

 

 

He’s not just challenging and requesting an audit. 
 

He has said that he won multiple

times. That there is evidence of hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes cast. 
 

He is not merely asking for more data. He’s staying his hope as fact, with as yet no evidence of widespread fraud. From the office of POTUS. Without ensuring the transition begins, a process he could always stop. 

[Niagara Bill]

Where the flip is trump. More people died in the past 2 days than died on

9 11. 

On Oct 27th in his speech he said Covid would disappear after the election , that doctors increased the numbers etc etc etc.

Where is this piece of shtt. He is the most gutless leader ever to be President.....people who continue to support him need to get some balls.

You can be a staunch Republican and recognize this piece of poop needs to be dealt with now. 

By Jan 20 the death toll will be over 400,000 and still climbing faster.

Lock him up, lock him up, lock him up. He is murdering Americans. 

 

[transplantbillsfan]

8 hours ago, snafu said:

 

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.

 

 

 

So even if there are errors 5 times the normal rate, why would ANYONE logically assume all those errors would bounce one way? 

 

Seems there would be just as many errors in Trump's favor as in Biden's... or it would be comparable.  And the gap between the two is in the hundreds of thousands at this point in terms of what Trump needs to make up.  And yes, I see that you acknowledge this at the end.  It just seems such a flimsy and silly argument on Trump's part at this point.

Edited November 12, 2020 by transplantbillsfan

[Backintheday544]

Trump walks away from COVID briefing afraid to answer questions. Remember before the election when the right thought that would cost Biden the election and that it was unpresidential?

[Q-baby!]

“The dude” has lost his mind over there (other site.)

He said he is actually hoping for another 9/11. 
Messed up mother *****! 
Can’t wait to see all the new usernames they create once this is all done and they look foolish (more than usual.) 

[daz28]

7 minutes ago, Q-baby! said:

“The dude” has lost his mind over there (other site.)

He said he is actually hoping for another 9/11. 
Messed up mother *****! 
Can’t wait to see all the new usernames they create once this is all done and they look foolish (more than usual.) 

Let's just be glad they built a wall that keeps us out from all their nonsense.