PDA

View Full Version : I Cannot Fathom This Election



Pages : [1] 2 3

corniche
November 2nd, 2020, 07:48 PM
Hi all,

I cannot understand how this is such a CLOSE election as everyone is claiming.

You look at the rallies and you see any of Trump's rallies and there are thousands of people there; meanwhile, the Joe "The Big Guy" Biden rallies have tens or maybe hundreds of people - and this is a razor point election???🤨

The rallies at least make sense. Trump has done more good in 3 years - while being savagely attacked by a morally bankrupt media - than Biden has accomplished in almost 50 years.

Trump delivered on more promises than he made - he made us completely energy independent for the first time in 79 years; he helped secure our borders and stopped the mass migrations; gave us the strongest economy we've ever seen with the lowest unemployment stats on record - including those for women and minorities; peace in the Middle East, etc., etc.

And then theres poor Biden, who will most likely be replaced by Harris, probably within 6 months of the election, who's policy proposals are promising - higher taxes; higher energy costs; gun confiscation; a long, dark winter in lockdown and a hard shift to Marxist socialism - and this is a CLOSE election??? (Not to mention the tens of millions of dollars he most likely took from hostile foreign countries that were channeled to him through his son). And my real fear is they'll deliver on these promises as well as Trump delivered on his.

Feel free to share your thoughts, IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN; I don't think it's appropriate for foreigners to tell us how to run our country/election.

- Sean

Freddie
November 2nd, 2020, 08:19 PM
Perhaps a member of the Internet Research Agency Or one of 'em actors from Russain with love
Misinformation...Ya know Bullshit......Even if you are not a USA citizen feel free To buy this garbage Hook Line & Sinker from above.....

Fred

corniche
November 2nd, 2020, 08:46 PM
None of Trump's accomplishments that I've cited are bullshit. The unemployment stats are all documented. He's up for two Nobel Prizes for his work in the Middle East, etc., - and if you think Biden will handle COVID19 any better; just study how terribly he and Obama mishandled the Swine Flu epidemic during their tenure.

- Sean

724Seney
November 2nd, 2020, 08:56 PM
Fred-

No, he represents an opinion shared by many Americans. And our friends & colleagues who are not USA citizens deserve to know that some "everyday" Americans feel this way.

You are completely entitled to your political views and preferences. And, so is he.

To characterize his opinion as "bullshit' and "misinformation," just because you do not agree with it, is flat out wrong. And, you know it.

corniche
November 2nd, 2020, 09:29 PM
Thank you, 724Seney.

- Sean

Hi all,

Here's where he uses his position as vice president to have the lead prosecutor investigating his son fired by threatening to withhold US foreign aid, ("solid" meaning someone who could be bought):

https://youtu.be/FdHWU5jDQ2w

https://youtu.be/lrb1plsj410


And here is the Swine Flu Debacle:

https://youtu.be/mT9SdZ66xdE


Maybe foriegn voices should be considered; here's a look at how he's viewed in Oz:

https://youtu.be/ep6fnH9l-Ls


I have a long day tomorrow, so.. Good night, America.

- Sean

Ray-VIgo
November 3rd, 2020, 06:59 AM
Setting aside the politics of each candidate, one thing I've tried to grasp is whether this sort of election will be the norm going forward or whether this is the product of a particular set of circumstances in 2020. The "daisy girl" and "Willy Horton" ads from years ago were pointed, but the 2020 presidential campaign has been one for the history books in terms of how negative from wire to wire. You can certainly expect a fair dose of negative campaigning and animosity in any election, but this one seems to have gone beyond garden variety. Each side has gone so far as to say that the country is "over" if the other side wins. Are the two sides now of such different worldviews now that any kind of real reconciliation can be made? I don't think we have the answer to that question yet, and maybe will not for some time. I can see why many people tune it all out and work to ignore it, what with there already being enough stress in their lives.

mhosea
November 3rd, 2020, 12:40 PM
Whatever the outcome, if we spend billions on building the infrastructure to build/rebuild confidence in the integrity of the vote, it will be money well spent. Not much is more important to the health of a democracy than confidence that the winner, such as they are, won fair and square.

Freddie
November 3rd, 2020, 02:30 PM
Fred-

No, he represents an opinion shared by many Americans. And our friends & colleagues who are not USA citizens deserve to know that some "everyday" Americans feel this way.

You are completely entitled to your political views and preferences. And, so is he.

To characterize his opinion as "bullshit' and "misinformation," just because you do not agree with it, is flat out wrong. And, you know it.

Facts and opinion are two different things......His facts are BullShit Disinformation....Not his politics...I've no problemo with anybody's political view....

Fred
chow time...............

Linger
November 4th, 2020, 05:30 AM
As a non US citizen, I am neither criticising nor telling anyone what is right or wrong. I am just trying to understand Trump's speech this morning. What do intelligent, educated, experienced, reasonable republicans make of that? Do they agree to his statements and claims and projected ways forward?

bunyip
November 4th, 2020, 11:02 PM
Maybe foriegn [sic] voices should be considered; here's a look at how he's viewed [by recognised extreme right journalists employed by Murdoch.]

Fixed the detail for you. That is a niche view here, and a pretty narrow niche at that.

Actual Australian government views expressed in the last 24 hours by both the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister are that all votes should be counted to completion and that orderly democracy and transitions are in the world's interest as well as America's. If you want more foreign views, I can find them for you.

Ray-VIgo
November 5th, 2020, 08:46 AM
It's striking how evenly matched the two primary factions are in the U.S., almost in an "equal and opposite reaction" way in this election. And now both sides are practicing low-resolution thinking as to the counting of votes. "Stop the count" and "count all votes" both miss the mark in the sense that the goal from an enumeration standpoint is to adhere as closely as possible to the relevant state statutes and regulations. Unfortunately the statutes in some states lend themselves to chaos more than in other states. But in a scene of chaos, the statutes and regulations are perhaps the only fixed landmarks for how to proceed, so we must use them as best we can.

As an aside, American electoral law is a very complex area. There are certain basic standards set in the federal arena, but a great deal of the body of electoral law is established by state statutes. Each state differs somewhat in how it handles elections. And even those who supposedly should know this sometimes miss the mark (I recall the case of an Assistant U.S. Attorney some years ago who threatened a number of local governments over voting accommodations, only to realize later that the state government sets the standards, not the local government).

Boston Brian
November 7th, 2020, 08:27 AM
I agree with Corniche, Mentally, Biden who has never been the brightest bulb in the box is clearly having mental, memory and focus issues. No wonder Harris agreed to be his VP, despite the mean and nasty accusations she threw at him earlier this year.
Personal ambition will always top party loyalty or national interest!
America has almost elected a confused, tired old man incapable of handling the extreme demands of the White House!
Sad for a large nation with millions of more talented and younger people.

Pterodactylus
November 7th, 2020, 03:56 PM
I’m really happy that this stupid, primitive liar who can hardly finish even one simple sentence without including a lie is history now.
You talk about bright bulbs? I hardly doubt that something in his head ever at least gleamed even a bit.
Another 4 years would have been eyesore and incredible dangerous for the whole world.
Luckily he put not the whole world on fire the last 4 years.
The damages he did to the environment, the world community, the US people in this pandemic and the US democracy are worse enough.

Biden will have a very hard job to clean this up and to try to heal the rift across the US citizens.
Congrats to the winner and the world is looking forward to welcome the US back in the world community.
I’m sure also outside the US many people will celebrate the victory of democracy.

ByeDon !!!

silverlifter
November 7th, 2020, 04:41 PM
I cannot understand how this is such a CLOSE election as everyone is claiming.

You look at the rallies and you see any of Trump's rallies and there are thousands of people there; meanwhile, the Joe "The Big Guy" Biden rallies have tens or maybe hundreds of people - and this is a razor point election???🤨

It's a real mystery alright. Historians of the future will ponder over this one...

It's not as if there is a global pandemic that is infecting more than 1000 Americans a day and has claimed the lives of nearly 240,000. Why wouldn't intelligent people want to congregate in close proximity and shower each other in spittle as they chant about building a wall?

Those Biden supporters that stayed home and posted their votes in must be really kicking themselves now. That'll show them for believing in science.

Sphere
November 7th, 2020, 04:42 PM
Since virtually everything Donald Trump did (with the exception of sending the deficit into orbit - he did that with the Republican Congress help) was done with an Executive Order, rather than through legislation. Therefore Mr. Biden can undo all of that mess simply by issuing his own Executive Order.

Empty_of_Clouds
November 7th, 2020, 05:23 PM
The ex-President should now be under close watch, in my opinion. Partly to make sure the silverware doesn't go missing, but mainly to prevent him manipulating stuff to avoid getting his just desserts in the months after President-elect Biden's inauguration. Same goes for Bill Barr and a few other associates.

Freddie
November 7th, 2020, 08:48 PM
I agree with Corniche, Mentally,Trump who has never been the brightest bulb in the box is clearly having mental, memory and focus issues. No wonder Pence agreed to be his VP, despite the mean and nasty accusations he threw at him earlier this year.
Personal ambition will always top party loyalty or national interest!
America has elected a confused, tired old man incapable of handling the extreme demands of the White House!
Sad for a large nation with millions of Covid cases with currently 237 thousand deaths and counting. So very, very sad.

Above brought to you by the Internet Research Agency......Or

Fred

724Seney
November 7th, 2020, 09:00 PM
I agree with Corniche, Mentally,Trump who has never been the brightest bulb in the box is clearly having mental, memory and focus issues. No wonder Pence agreed to be his VP, despite the mean and nasty accusations he threw at him earlier this year.
Personal ambition will always top party loyalty or national interest!
America has elected a confused, tired old man incapable of handling the extreme demands of the White House!
Sad for a large nation with millions of Covid cases with currently 237 thousand deaths and counting. So very, very sad.

Above brought to you by the Internet Research Agency......Or

Fred


Apparently when someone is "woke" it is perfectly ok for he or she to take someone else's quote and change the wording of the quote.... yet still attribute it to the original individual.
All while whining incessantly about others providing misinformation!

Freddie
November 7th, 2020, 09:14 PM
I agree with Corniche, Mentally,Trump who has never been the brightest bulb in the box is clearly having mental, memory and focus issues. No wonder Pence agreed to be his VP, despite the mean and nasty accusations he threw at him earlier this year.
Personal ambition will always top party loyalty or national interest!
America has elected a confused, tired old man incapable of handling the extreme demands of the White House!
Sad for a large nation with millions of Covid cases with currently 237 thousand deaths and counting. So very, very sad.

Above brought to you by the Internet Research Agency......Or

Fred


Apparently when someone is "woke" it is perfectly ok for he or she to take someone else's quote and change the wording of the quote.... yet still attribute it to the original individual.
All while whining incessantly about others providing misinformation!

Thank you.

Fascinating.

Fred

noahs_ark
November 7th, 2020, 11:01 PM
What I will say is that I believe the fact that Biden was didn't win as decisively as everyone assumed he would is going to hurt him politically.. and possibly send a message on how his message was portrayed/vp picked.

Linger
November 8th, 2020, 01:41 AM
What I will say is that I believe the fact that Biden was didn't win as decisively as everyone assumed he would is going to hurt him politically.. and possibly send a message on how his message was portrayed/vp picked.

At this moment, Biden won the popular vote by some 4,5 mln, and if projections on last states (as well as the expected recounts) don’t give surprises, Biden will have 306 electoral votes. Is that not decisive? Is that not clear?

dneal
November 8th, 2020, 01:46 PM
What I will say is that I believe the fact that Biden was didn't win as decisively as everyone assumed he would is going to hurt him politically.. and possibly send a message on how his message was portrayed/vp picked.

At this moment, Biden won the popular vote by some 4,5 mln, and if projections on last states (as well as the expected recounts) don’t give surprises, Biden will have 306 electoral votes. Is that not decisive? Is that not clear?

Unlike the OP, I have no problem with non-U.S. Citizens stating their opinions. It would be beneficial if they would familiarize themselves with how U.S. elections work though. Already we see news articles where German politicians are urging Trump to "accept the results of the election". Biden hasn't won yet (although I suspect he will). The news media does not determine the results of an election. States certify elections and their legislatures appoint their electors. Those electors cast their votes when the electoral college meets, and a President-Elect is determined. Right now, it is not out of the realm of the possible for Trump to be successful in some of his challenges; and win a second term. It's simply too early to tell.

The popular vote is irrelevant. The Electoral College, like the Senate, is designed to protect the interests of rural areas and prevent metropolitan areas from having too much influence. It's why we're looking at what happens in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, etc... and not New York, California or Texas.

Linger
November 8th, 2020, 02:48 PM
I have familiarized myself with your system dneal, i even know that this year’s 14 december is an important date in that respect - i just jump ahead a few formal steps...like everybody (german politicians included) else i guess.

“The popular vote is irrelevant.” Well, yeah, in your formal system it apparently is. But generally speaking? Trump thought it was relevant - he lied about losing the popular vote...

dneal
November 8th, 2020, 05:13 PM
I have familiarized myself with your system dneal, i even know that this year’s 14 december is an important date in that respect - i just jump ahead a few formal steps...like everybody (german politicians included) else i guess.

“The popular vote is irrelevant.” Well, yeah, in your formal system it apparently is. But generally speaking? Trump thought it was relevant - he lied about losing the popular vote...

I'm not sure what your argument is. That I'm wrong because you and Trump agree on the importance of the popular vote (generally speaking, of course...)?

Sorry, but you and the orange one's opinion don't matter. The popular vote doesn't decide anything with regard to the Presidential election. It remains irrelevant.

Linger
November 9th, 2020, 01:10 AM
It is not for me to say who or what is right of wrong. My initial reaction was a question to the statement that the election result was not decisive enough. I would think that the outcome of the electoral vote, de jura, is quite clear, and that the outcome of the popular vote, de facto, is also quite clear. But maybe the difference should be bigger to be decisive.

The popular vote = the majority of votes = a relevant indicator of what the electorate wants. Regardless of playing no formal role in the election process.

724Seney
November 9th, 2020, 06:28 AM
It is not for me to say who or what is right of wrong. My initial reaction was a question to the statement that the election result was not decisive enough. I would think that the outcome of the electoral vote, de jura, is quite clear, and that the outcome of the popular vote, de facto, is also quite clear. But maybe the difference should be bigger to be decisive.

The popular vote = the majority of votes = a relevant indicator of what the electorate wants. Regardless of playing no formal role in the election process.

Without making this into another partisan political discussion (or, at least, more so than it already is) may I ask if a determination of "decisive" is at all linked to the concept of having "met expectations?"

If yes, than even the very liberal leaning, pro-Biden press and the very Democrats themselves are indicating the election was NOT decisive, as it fell way short of meeting their expectations. They were widely predicting a victory of far greater proportion(s) than we have witnessed. In fact, the poor performance of the Democrats at the polls has now created a severe fracture within the Democratic party; one which will be difficult to them to reconcile.

dneal
November 9th, 2020, 06:39 AM
The popular vote = the majority of votes = a relevant indicator of what the electorate wants. Regardless of playing no formal role in the election process.

I understand why you get this wrong, and a great many Americans do as well. The United States is a Republic. It is a Union of States as opposed to one monolithic democracy. “The Electorate” is not 330M Americans. It is 50 States. It was always the idea for the States to be supreme in their sovereignty, with some powers delegated to a Federal government - by those sovereign States.

That idea has been flipped on it’s head, primarily due to our education system no longer teaching basic civics. Nonetheless, the distinction is important.

Ray-VIgo
November 9th, 2020, 09:45 AM
There is also the more fundamental issue of whether too much emphasis and authority is being pooled in the office of the president. One would think we are electing a king or a dictator, and the obsession lends itself to autocratic government. The office of the president as envisaged by the Constitution and the office as practiced today are not the same. Each successive administration brings in a barrage of executive orders that are effectively being used as a substitute for legislation. It is unclear to me how the process would be stopped because each presidential election seems to have a more an "end times" feel. There were a number of commentators on both sides of the 2020 presidential race who said that America would be "over" if the other side won the office. Eventually it will lead to a presidential office that has extreme and sweeping powers, only rarely checked by the courts or a rare rebuke from a divided and weakened Congress (and only then with a super-majority). I have more faith in my town's selectmen and town meeting government than in the federal one, and that has been true for some time.

kazoolaw
November 9th, 2020, 09:51 AM
What I will say is that I believe the fact that Biden was didn't win as decisively as everyone assumed he would is going to hurt him politically.. and possibly send a message on how his message was portrayed/vp picked.

At this moment, Biden won the popular vote by some 4,5 mln, and if projections on last states (as well as the expected recounts) don’t give surprises, Biden will have 306 electoral votes. Is that not decisive? Is that not clear?

I assume noah is referring to the lack of coattails for the Senate and House.

Empty_of_Clouds
November 9th, 2020, 11:49 AM
There is also the more fundamental issue of whether too much emphasis and authority is being pooled in the office of the president. One would think we are electing a king or a dictator, and the obsession lends itself to autocratic government. The office of the president as envisaged by the Constitution and the office as practiced today are not the same. Each successive administration brings in a barrage of executive orders that are effectively being used as a substitute for legislation. It is unclear to me how the process would be stopped because each presidential election seems to have a more an "end times" feel. There were a number of commentators on both sides of the 2020 presidential race who said that America would be "over" if the other side won the office. Eventually it will lead to a presidential office that has extreme and sweeping powers, only rarely checked by the courts or a rare rebuke from a divided and weakened Congress (and only then with a super-majority). I have more faith in my town's selectmen and town meeting government than in the federal one, and that has been true for some time.


It seems extraordinary that the winning party in a US presidential election may not enjoy a majority in the legislative house. In my view this is not how democracy is supposed to work, and this is supported by THIS WIKI LIST (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index), which flags the US as a flawed democracy.

The page describes it thus:

"Flawed democracies are nations where elections are fair and free and basic civil liberties are honoured but may have issues (e.g. media freedom infringement and minor suppression of political opposition and critics). These nations have significant faults in other democratic aspects, including underdeveloped political culture, low levels of participation in politics, and issues in the functioning of governance."

What is the point of having such a system where one side can constantly block the other?

dneal
November 9th, 2020, 01:44 PM
It seems extraordinary that the winning party in a US presidential election may not enjoy a majority in the legislative house. In my view this is not how democracy is supposed to work, and this is supported by THIS WIKI LIST (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index), which flags the US as a flawed democracy.

-snip-

What is the point of having such a system where one side can constantly block the other?

Sorry if I don't take Wikipedia "flagging" the U.S. as a "flawed democracy" too seriously... :/

The point in the U.S. system is precisely that one side can constantly block the other. It is to prevent the centralization of power and to protect the minority. Justice Scalia often made this point in his speeches / lectures. In a parliamentary system, the executive must agree with the legislative body; since they are a product of it. Don't like the Prime Minister? Just hold a vote of no confidence and replace them. THAT is a flawed democratic system.

This video is the briefest one, but if 7 minutes is too long then start at 3:55.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd--UO0

dneal
November 9th, 2020, 02:02 PM
There is also the more fundamental issue of whether too much emphasis and authority is being pooled in the office of the president. One would think we are electing a king or a dictator, and the obsession lends itself to autocratic government. The office of the president as envisaged by the Constitution and the office as practiced today are not the same. Each successive administration brings in a barrage of executive orders that are effectively being used as a substitute for legislation. It is unclear to me how the process would be stopped because each presidential election seems to have a more an "end times" feel. There were a number of commentators on both sides of the 2020 presidential race who said that America would be "over" if the other side won the office. Eventually it will lead to a presidential office that has extreme and sweeping powers, only rarely checked by the courts or a rare rebuke from a divided and weakened Congress (and only then with a super-majority). I have more faith in my town's selectmen and town meeting government than in the federal one, and that has been true for some time.

Excellent post. Justice Gorsuch's book "A Republic If You Can Keep It" addresses the consolidation of power in the executive, via administrative rules; and how he believes it is a clear violation of the Constitution that laws originate in the legislature (and that they therefore cannot delegate it). The regulations in the various CFRs are developed primarily by the executive - and they carry the weight of law.

adhoc
November 10th, 2020, 12:27 PM
I don't particularly like or dislike either Trump or Biden, and to be honest I don't even care about US politics much, I'm only interested in Europe, but I am hopeful the political primitivism to which we have been spectators to will go away, as it has thoroughly infiltrated European politics, in particular my country's.

pajaro
November 10th, 2020, 11:42 PM
I get it, a lot of people weren't happy with Republican Party politics. Some people weren't very civil, upsetting a lot of others. You get more support by using a pleasant turn of phrase to get your ideas across.

adhoc
November 11th, 2020, 04:36 AM
Well, yes. I'm not emotionally attached to political elite that doesn't care about me, so I can afford to look at it from a distance that allows me to be objective. Some things Trump was right about - NATO spending comes to mind, for example. We signed a contract to spend 2% of our GDP. But there are better and worse ways of getting that point across. Fracturing EU-US relationships by doing it is not the better way of doing it, I think.

welch
November 12th, 2020, 01:30 PM
I have familiarized myself with your system dneal, i even know that this year’s 14 december is an important date in that respect - i just jump ahead a few formal steps...like everybody (german politicians included) else i guess.

“The popular vote is irrelevant.” Well, yeah, in your formal system it apparently is. But generally speaking? Trump thought it was relevant - he lied about losing the popular vote...

Trump has a fragile ego. It was hurt when Hillary Clinton got 3 million more votes than he did, so he claimed that 3 million Mexicans (or Martians?) slipped over the border from Canada to vote in the 2016 Presidential election. Trump did the same when he was inaugurated, forcing his press spokesman to claim that he drew more people than President Obama did in 2009 or 2013. It is Trumpist fantasy, and
everyone knows it...except those who live in fantasy.

The official election will happen on December 14, but that is just a formality. By now, every state presents a set of electors pledged to each presidential candidate. By state law, people choose from slates of electors, in winner-take-all votes. The framers of the US Constitution knew nothing of semi-permanent political parties; the framers expected that electors would be prominent men familiar with other prominent men from all the states. That is more or less how things had fallen out in the Continental Congress and the Confederation Congress (that is, the Congress that had led the US under the Articles of Confederation). Elections have never really worked that way, and certainly not since the election of 1800 in which Thomas Jefferson defeated President John Adams. Electors no longer exercise a choice.

Yes, it is an odd system. The US wrote it's two constitutions after the English parliament won supremacy in 1688, but while there was still some sort of fiction that the British monarch was the executive power. The US President is a symbol of the country, like a European monarch or president, but also has real executive power.

welch
November 13th, 2020, 06:49 PM
What I will say is that I believe the fact that Biden was didn't win as decisively as everyone assumed he would is going to hurt him politically.. and possibly send a message on how his message was portrayed/vp picked.

At this moment, Biden won the popular vote by some 4,5 mln, and if projections on last states (as well as the expected recounts) don’t give surprises, Biden will have 306 electoral votes. Is that not decisive? Is that not clear?

Yes, it is more decisive than Trump's victory in 2016. Biden has won the same number of electoral votes, by bigger margins than Trump in the swing states, and by an even larger margin of the popular vote than Clinton beat Trump. The Democrats maintained control of the House of Representatives, and control of the Senate depends on two elections in Georgia that will be held in early January.

Why is a US President not necessarily backed by a Congressional majority?

- The US Constitution was written before the US had political parties. At most, as in James Madison's Federalist 10, "party" was more or less the same as "faction": it shifted by issue and by area; it was impermanent. The first party system grew about ten years after the Constitution, was snuffed out with the election of Jefferson in 1800, and then recreated after Andrew Jackson began a vengeance campaign against John Quincy Adams after the 1824 election. That system fell apart in the 1850's, over slavery.

- Until the 1994 election, when congressional Republicans ran on their "Contract with America", political scientists often said something like "The two parties exist only during the party conventions that meet every four years to nominate candidates for President. In between and day-to-day, we have state parties. There is no party discipline, and neither party represents a clear ideology". (That's from a course I took in 1971 on parties in the US, Britain, and West Germany).

- While American political scientists grumbled and proposed "a more responsible party system" (title of a big deal book by a committee of political scientists in 1950), the country muddled along with a "four party" system...Northern and Southern, Democratic and Republican (subtitle of a book by James McGregor Burns in 1963: "The Deadlock of Democracy"). On most issue -- meaning everything except civil rights -- members of congress could shift from issue to issue.

- That is, until recently, a President did not absolutely need control of House and Senate.

- Is the current situation workable? Meaning an ideological Republican Party facing a distinct, but less coordinated, Democratic Party -- that is, a DP with two wings. I don't know. The electoral system plus American political tradition does not do this sort of thing well.

welch
November 18th, 2020, 08:33 PM
For people around the world who might wonder what is happening in the US election, here is the situation as of November 18:

- Joe Biden has won enough states to give him more than 300 electoral votes -- more than the 270 needed to win. The Electoral College, an odd relic, but one that will not be changed, if ever, will meet on December 14. That is the Presidential election described in the US Constitution.

- In most states, the laws require a state's electors to vote for the candidate to which they are pledged; in those states where state law does not require this, each party selects a group of electors from senior party officials, so it amounts to the same thing.

- The next step is that states will certify which party's electors were chosen in the election. Although a few states -- North Carolina for one, and probably New York for another -- are still counting ballots, the votes remaining to be counted are fewer than the difference between one candidate and the other. It is all over but the tidying up. While there are recounts in Georgia, and, perhaps, in Wisconsin, a recount never changes more than a few hundred votes. In Georgia, Biden leads Trump by more than 10,000 votes. In Wisconsin, Biden leads Trump by about 20,000 votes. The lead will not change in either state. In Pennsylvania, Biden leads Trump by about 65,000 votes, or more than 65 times more than any US recount has ever changed.

- The Trump campaign has filed more than a dozen lawsuits in hopes of finding a judge who will over-turn an election. They have all failed. The Trump campaign, in the last week or so, has withdrawn suits and has narrowed their claims. The suits no longer claim fraud; in Pennsylvania, the Trump campaign has been reduced to complaining that election boards in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh allowed voters to fix technical errors in their mail-in ballots, such as failing to write a return address, which election boards in a few Republican counties did not. The state board of elections explained to the judge that state law allows ballots to be "cured" in this way. Republican voters should sue the Republican-led counties for failing to follow state law.

That is about it. Here is a Washington Post summary that tries to guess what the Trump campaign is up from here on.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-election-strategy/2020/11/18/94fbe50e-29c9-11eb-92b7-6ef17b3fe3b4_story.html

pajaro
November 19th, 2020, 12:54 PM
Mary Trump said on CNN that Donald Trump has always been able to bully or buy his way out of any apparently losing situation, but not this election loss. So, he appears to be thrashing around trying to find a way out. That does appear to be what is happening.

welch
November 19th, 2020, 09:03 PM
For those keeping score at home, if your home is not in the US, here are the dates of the next steps in the US Presidential election, Roughly:

- Between now and December 8, states will certify the vote counts

- December 14: the Electoral College meets to hold the official election

- Early January: the US Congress meets to accept the results from the Electoral College

- January 20, noon: Joe Biden is sworn in as 46th President

(Today, Georgia finished its re-count.) Details in the article from the NY Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/article/us-election-results-trump-biden.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

Details,

alfredop
November 21st, 2020, 01:09 PM
For those keeping score at home, if your home is not in the US, here are the dates of the next steps in the US Presidential election, Roughly:

- Between now and December 8, states will certify the vote counts

- December 14: the Electoral College meets to hold the official election

- Early January: the US Congress meets to accept the results from the Electoral College

- January 20, noon: Joe Biden is sworn in as 46th President

(Today, Georgia finished its re-count.) Details in the article from the NY Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/article/us-election-results-trump-biden.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

Details,

So long life to Joe, and Donald, please, when leave the White House, leaves everything in good order :crazy_pilot:

Alfredo

bunyip
November 21st, 2020, 02:40 PM
... Donald, please, when leave the White House, leaves everything in good order :crazy_pilot:

Alfredo
From a distant observer, good luck with that one. :)

TSherbs
November 24th, 2020, 07:58 PM
Looks like now Trump is beginning to let go. Over thirty suits failed, some of which were pathetic, and the judge would say so. If you ever wondered if Trump hired "great people" (as he claimed repeatedly), we have all witnessed over the last three weeks how untrue that is (over the last four years, really). Trump even recently tweeted that this election was the "most corrupt in US history." What a bald lie.

Where is Corniche now with his incredulity at the possibility of a "tight" race???

bunyip
November 24th, 2020, 08:02 PM
Where is Corniche now with his incredulity at the possibility of a "tight" race???
Not logged on since 6 November.

TSherbs
November 25th, 2020, 06:12 AM
Well, turns out he was right. It wasn't close!

ethernautrix
November 25th, 2020, 10:10 AM
If Trump is filing baseless, frivolous lawsuits, then he should be personally liable for paying the costs.

"If" -- hahaha sigh.

welch
November 25th, 2020, 10:16 AM
Ah, I've known Corniche for almost fifteen years. He is the one who discovered the ingredients of Solv-X. Found Parker's patent that includes what makes it. It is someplace on FPN -- another reason to like that place. In spite of politics, he is a good guy.

welch
November 25th, 2020, 10:21 AM
My first C-Language program put "Hello, world!"

Now Biden says, "America is back".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/america-is-back-biden-pushes-past-trump-era-with-nominees/2020/11/25/58941376-2edc-11eb-9dd6-2d0179981719_story.html

TSherbs
November 25th, 2020, 11:35 AM
If Trump is filing baseless, frivolous lawsuits, then he should be personally liable for paying the costs.

"If" -- hahaha sigh.

Trump also has stated that Presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution and absolute pardon powers, even to pardon himself. Yeah, been a rough time of you've looked for leadership with ethical principle.

Empty_of_Clouds
November 25th, 2020, 02:33 PM
If Trump is filing baseless, frivolous lawsuits, then he should be personally liable for paying the costs.

"If" -- hahaha sigh.

Trump also has stated that Presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution and absolute pardon powers, even to pardon himself. Yeah, been a rough time of you've looked for leadership with ethical principle.

Kind of hard to pardon yourself for crimes you haven't been prosecuted for (yet). There's also the pardoner-pardonee issue. As I understand it, this represents two individuals and thus cannot be documented as being the same person in both instances.

TSherbs
November 25th, 2020, 04:00 PM
If Trump is filing baseless, frivolous lawsuits, then he should be personally liable for paying the costs.

"If" -- hahaha sigh.

Trump also has stated that Presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution and absolute pardon powers, even to pardon himself. Yeah, been a rough time of you've looked for leadership with ethical principle.

Kind of hard to pardon yourself for crimes you haven't been prosecuted for (yet). There's also the pardoner-pardonee issue. As I understand it, this represents two individuals and thus cannot be documented as being the same person in both instances.

I suppose that you are right, but these "facts" don't keep the Donald from claiming the "authority." It's what he do. (Obama hits three-pointers).

Empty_of_Clouds
November 25th, 2020, 05:34 PM
The point is, though, that after Jan 20th he will no longer be president and will not have that authority. So I guess that means he cannot pardon himself for anything he gets taken to court for after that date? Asking for a friend. :)

dneal
November 25th, 2020, 07:25 PM
The thing about this election for me is that I'll be interested in the court proceedings from a Constitutional perspective. There are several dates and procedures that can't be gotten around (well, I suppose the Supreme Court can "interpret" their way around some, but with 1/3 of the Court already being "strict Constitutionalists"... it's unlikely). There are differing State laws, and different arguments that could make for some interesting results. We haven't had a President determined by the House since John Quincy Adams, I believe. I doubt that we'll see this sort of thing, and fully anticipate that Joe Biden will be inaugurated in January; but hey... stranger things have happened!

The other thing about this election (and perhaps the Trump Presidency) is how far each side has withdrawn into their camps / echo chambers. Rational, polite discussion is essentially impossible. Although some argue this began during the Reagan Presidency, and the Bork and Thomas judicial nominations; it seems to me that this began when the Republicans took the House during Clinton's first mid-term, and that was the first time in 60 years or so that the GOP held power in the Congress. The political climate has steadily declined since. Four years ago, one side was screaming that the election was illegitimate due to "Russian Collusion". Now the other is claiming mass fraud.

Exacerbating these echo chambers is the media (both mass and social). Liberals nod knowingly as their champions spin their opinions, and Conservatives do similarly with theirs. Someone in the center is labeled a "libtard" or "Trumpkin" by either side for not following the orthodoxy. There is clearly evidence (how convincing remains to be seen) that there were irregularities during this election. The right thinks it's concrete and the left asserts "nothing to be seen here". Social media is labeling every post related to the election with something along the lines of "Biden is the projected winner", or "there are safeguards to American elections".

I don't know why there's an effort to stifle debate. It's a healthy thing in a democracy. If anything, it convinces some of the true nefarious intent of the media (and god knows what else that might be happening by the illuminati or skull and bones type Rothschilds-ean organization... more currently labeled the "deep state"). Why in the world exacerbate the conspiracy theories by blocking/cancelling/censoring reasonable points of view (even if they're wrong)?

The general inclination here seems to be toward the more liberal perspective, but when I read some of the comments I wonder if people really believe the over simplistic hyperbole they type. I have plenty of criticisms of Trump. His personality is an easy target, but there are many of his policies I disagree with too. There are many that I do agree with as well. He's hardly a tyrant, "literally Hitler", or whatever other banal accusation the far left makes.

So a question for those who find him so objectionable. Specifically, what (other than his bombast) do you think makes him a bad President? And as a followup, what makes you think Joe Biden will be a good one (if you think that)?

dneal
November 25th, 2020, 07:53 PM
Ok, so you mostly addressed the bombast. I'm not sure about his hiring / firing practices, or that they were particularly unorthodox in comparison to other administrations. That always brings scandal/intrigue. Are there one or two in particular that you're referencing?

--edit--

You edited, so I'll add a bit. I don't think Trump is the cause of the divisiveness. That goes back well before his time. I agree he contributes to it.

dneal
November 25th, 2020, 09:43 PM
Let's not get pedantic. Bombast also means "pretentious inflated speech or writing". Synonyms are: bluster, brag, braggadocio, etc... There's plenty to complain about, but again that's easy pickin's...

I'm not a fan of Kushner, or his advising his father in law. I wasn't a fan of Hillary being put in charge of "Hillarycare" during her husband's administration. But that's superficial. Kushner also got three peace deals signed with Israel. That's tangible.


As for Trump's hiring and firing within the administration. I agree it doesn't look good, but "looking like a circus" is superficial criticism too. One could say the Obama administration "looked like a bunch of amateurs" when they gave the Prime Minister of the U.K. a stupid DVD collection, and followed that up with giving the Queen an ipod on a state visit. Is that how we want to characterize the entirety of the Obama admin? A bunch of amateurs? It's just vapid.

People in the cabinet serve at the pleasure of the President. Literally. Trump has just shown the painful truth of that. But that just gets back to the fact that his behavior is distasteful, and agree or not it just isn't a substantive argument. Appearances are important, but they're not the purpose of the executive. A more specific criticism would be that I didn't agree with hiring John Bolton. He's a hawk that thinks American foreign policy should be militant (literally). He played a large role in persuading President Bush to invade Iraq. I'm glad his tenure in the Trump administration was short.

dneal
November 25th, 2020, 10:09 PM
One could say the Obama administration "looked like a bunch of amateurs" when they gave the Prime Minister of the U.K. a stupid DVD collection, and followed that up with giving the Queen an ipod on a state visit. Is that how we want to characterize the entirety of the Obama admin? A bunch of amateurs? It's just vapid.

Now that's outright ‘whataboutism’. You wanted to hear others' thoughts on how Trump is a bad President. Whatever Obama, Clinton or Bush did has no relevance, unless you want to argue that Trump's missteps are forced errors under the burden of former presidencies' sins.

Yes, it is "whataboutism" to illustrate a point. In both cases, they are superficial arguments.

You're deflecting from the actual point. I don't blame you for not being familiar with Trump's actual policies. Most Americans aren't either. That's why I asked the question - because the most people can come up with is some variation of "Trump's an asshole". Fine, I concede that point. Now let's talk about black unemployment. Let's talk about the merits or disadvantages of cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. Let's talk about U.S. oil production. Let's talk about renegotiating NAFTA. Let's talk about NATO. Something that isn't twitter or facebook level of "gotcha" analysis.

bunyip
November 26th, 2020, 02:29 AM
Specifically, what (other than his bombast) do you think makes him a bad President?
Shit policies (some listed), apparent corruption (not exonerated by investigation), evident incompetence (see SARS-COV-2 and consequent death rates and economic impacts)


And as a followup, what makes you think Joe Biden will be a good one (if you think that)?
If I were to think that, then possibly I could imagine he has slightly less shit policies? He might die and Kamala Harris take over and she might be better? Should I know? Read further for clarification.

The problem here is that in later posts you have gone on to present, apparently approvingly, several policies of the soon-to-be-deleted President while making no mention of alternative policies which might have been beneficial, nor mention of actual (nor your desired) social and economic consequences. That is, I see no sign other than the common case that people defend their assumptions. How is this breaking down the polarisation which appeared first to motivate your query?

I live in another country. America affects us just like China does. I have no control over what happens in those places and our government little more. However, I am very happy with our greater irreligiousness, superior health care, and high standard of living, amongst other things, despite seeing a need for further change. YMMV.

Tomorrow, as today, we (and our general economy) will go out with little need of masks, with only ordinary precautions, and without a record of > 20,000 deaths we might have had proportionally with the American population. Good luck.

By the way, admitting that you are using a whatabout or tu quoque argument does not lend it merit beyond the zero with which it started. :)

dneal
November 26th, 2020, 04:44 AM
In both cases, they are superficial arguments.

You're deflecting from the actual point.

Let me reiterate: the actual point, in answer to your question, is that I think Donald Trump is a bad President because he makes the USA look like a sad joke to the rest of the world. Maybe Obama, Clinton and Bush all did too; if so, you could say they were therefore bad Presidents too, as if that has any relevance to the question you asked. It doesn't make Trump any better as the Head of State.

You asked for others' thoughts. I gave you mine. You don't need to convince me that Trump isn't so bad; I'm not a US citizen and not a voter. I'm not arguing that he's a bad President and hope to convince you; I just think what I think.

*sigh*

I didn't ask to be convinced if Trump was a bad President, and I'm not trying to convince anyone he's not. I'm simply asking for reasons beyond the superficial. You're merely demonstrating my point about simplistic hyperbole, and keep reiterating variations of "Orange man bad..."

There are plenty of more relevant points that can be made, even if you're not a citizen. American international relations or actions (other than "hur dur, he's a joke"), can be made. Trump's policy on pulling out of Afghanistan. His policy of pulling out of Syria. His effort to get NATO countries to spend 2% of their GDP in accordance with the treaty. His pulling out of the Paris climate accord. There are plenty of policies that could be addressed. You choose not to.

dneal
November 26th, 2020, 05:00 AM
Shit policies (some listed), apparent corruption (not exonerated by investigation), evident incompetence (see SARS-COV-2 and consequent death rates and economic impacts)


And as a followup, what makes you think Joe Biden will be a good one (if you think that)?
If I were to think that, then possibly I could imagine he has slightly less shit policies? He might die and Kamala Harris take over and she might be better? Should I know? Read further for clarification.

The problem here is that in later posts you have gone on to present, apparently approvingly, several policies of the soon-to-be-deleted President while making no mention of alternative policies which might have been beneficial, nor mention of actual (nor your desired) social and economic consequences. That is, I see no sign other than the common case that people defend their assumptions. How is this breaking down the polarisation which appeared first to motivate your query?

I live in another country. America affects us just like China does. I have no control over what happens in those places and our government little more. However, I am very happy with our greater irreligiousness, superior health care, and high standard of living, amongst other things, despite seeing a need for further change. YMMV.

Tomorrow, as today, we (and our general economy) will go out with little need of masks, with only ordinary precautions, and without a record of > 20,000 deaths we might have had proportionally with the American population. Good luck.

By the way, admitting that you are using a whatabout or tu quoque argument does not lend it merit beyond the zero with which it started. :)

Ok, but why do you think they are shit policies? Just pick one if you like. I listed some examples without "apparent approval", and have not indicated my desires. I noted polarization, not a desire to break it down here. There are many assumptions being made in your post.

One point of "whataboutism". That's about hypocrisy. It's not, in and of itself, some logical fallacy. "Whataboutism" is when you argue something like "It's ok for Trump to be incompetent because Obama was incompetent". That's not what I did. Quite the opposite, in fact. I gave examples of another administration to illustrate that superficial arguments are just that - superficial. Claims otherwise are just rhetoric to get away from the point. Otherwise any comparison of administrations could be dismissed as "whataboutism". Want to compare Jeffersonian and Jacksonian policies? Nah, that's just "whataboutism"...

TSherbs
November 26th, 2020, 05:34 AM
One of the worst things Trump had done as president is added cred to the white supremacy movement in America. This movement lives without Trump, but his whistles and other statements brought them out onto the streets again en masse.

dneal
November 26th, 2020, 06:15 AM
If you insist. I already started my very first reply to you with, “I don't find him so objectionable per se,” so I don't how that is a case of “Orange man bad.” It's not a question of the man, but his behaviours that are unbecoming of a chief executive of any high-profile entity, let alone a Head of State. I don't care about his policies, by and large they have little direct impact on me; and I already said, “irrespective of his actual performance in the office,” when pointing out some of those ungracious and questionable behaviours.


American international relations or actions (other than "hur dur, he's a joke"), can be made.

Did I not specifically mention antagonising China, in a particularly immature and churlish way no less?

It's not “Trump's a joke.” It's “USA run by Trump is a joke” to people outside. That's what makes him a bad President of the United States, without my needing to study his policies or assess the impact of such.


There are plenty of policies that could be addressed. You choose not to.

Yes, I choose not to. His administration makes USA look like such a joke that I don't have any interest in looking at his policies, to find in what ways the country may be going in “the right direction” nevertheless. That's part and parcel of the point I'm making. It's superficial, but it's not about the Orange man as an individual, albeit a powerful one; it's about how the country — either metonymically or synecdochically — is seen because of him.

A CEO of a profitable company can still be considered a bad employee and bad Number One representative of the company, and pressured to resigned by the owners or Board of Directors, for public behaviours that tarnish the company's reputation in the public eye. The world is the public eye, in relation to a single country.

Why continue with the reiteration? Orange man is bad. You admit your point is superficial. Got it.

Steve Jobs was an asshole too. You can write him off at just that, or you can evaluate what he did and didn't do for the now trillion-dollar company.

TSherbs
November 26th, 2020, 06:17 AM
Trump promised a wall, and did not deliver.
Trump promised an infrastructure project, and did not deliver.
Trump promised a health care plan, and did not deliver.
Trump promised "great hirings," and spectacularly failed.
Trump told the country that Covid would miraculously disappear in the summer, and this lie (he knew it was a lie) encouraged people to dismiss health regulations, and this disregard is now what had put this country in the terrible place it is: leading the world in positive cases and deaths.
Trump has gutted the EPA and the CDC of their power to protect the country.
Oh yeah, Trump was impeached for his behaviors while in office.

dneal
November 26th, 2020, 06:21 AM
One of the worst things Trump had done as president is added cred to the white supremacy movement in America. This movement lives without Trump, but his whistles and other statements brought them out onto the streets again en masse.

Yes. While I doubt highly that Donald Trump is an actual racist, he has definitely created opportunity for racists to piggyback on many of his comments and policies, and opportunities for his opponents to label him. That incompetence in linguistics and self-awareness sows division, whether intentional or not, and a not-superficial example.

TSherbs
November 26th, 2020, 06:21 AM
It's tough to criticize a president in policy when he has basically never produced any. He has been a president with no policy but self-aggrandizement. He's appointed three SCJ, but this is the result of circumstance, not policy. And he got a tax bill through. This didn't crash the economy, but it doesn't help the middle class either.

TSherbs
November 26th, 2020, 06:28 AM
Trump has been saying racist nonsense for decades.
He lost a lawsuit over race in his hotels (I can't now remember if it was staff of clients).
He lied repeatedly about the Central Park Five.
He was the champion of the Obama racist birther lies.
Trump is exactly what a racist white is. Personally. In the flesh. A racist white in positions of power to say and do things with prejudice and damage and ill will.

dneal
November 26th, 2020, 06:32 AM
It's tough to criticize a president in policy when he has basically never produced any. He has been a president with no policy but self-aggrandizement. He's appointed three SCJ, but this is the result of circumstance, not policy. And he got a tax bill through. This didn't crash the economy, but it doesn't help the middle class either.

Here's his list of claimed accomplishments (https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments/). There are several sites that "fact-check" these, with varying levels of objectivity; but looking at the list I see some I agree with and some I don't.

His economic results are pretty hard to argue. The economy boomed pre-pandemic. That was good for a lot of people, from small business owners to large corporations. The middle class didn't benefit directly (meaning they didn't see immediate profit), but they did benefit through an expanded job market and 401k plans. Many saw a lower tax burden, although that was obscured by lower tax returns; and residents of some states saw their tax liability increase because they could no longer write off state taxes when preparing their federal returns.

Moving the embassy to Jerusalem is hardly an achievement. I see that as a Kushner objective, and not one suited to stability in that region.

Getting a $700B defense budget is nothing to brag about. We spend way too much money on defense (and that's coming from a guy who spent 32 years in the Army). We need to stop being the world's policeman, and I agree with withdrawing from Syria and Afghanistan (although the bureaucracy is slow-rolling both of those).

dneal
November 26th, 2020, 06:37 AM
Trump has been saying racist nonsense for decades.
He lost a lawsuit over race in his hotels (I can't now remember if it was staff of clients).
He lied repeatedly about the Central Park Five.
He was the champion of the Obama racist birther lies.
Trump is exactly what a racist white is. Personally. In the flesh. A racist white in positions of power to say and do things with prejudice and damage and ill will.

Robert Byrd was a racist / white supremacist. The birther thing was stupid, but not necessarily racist.

When a supposed white supremacist lets his daughter marry a Jew, achieves record levels of minority employment, and pushes legal reforms that benefit overincarcerated minorities; I have a hard time believing they're truly racists.

dneal
November 26th, 2020, 06:39 AM
Why continue with the reiteration? Orange man is bad.

Because you continue to misrepresent my point. Feel free to say you disagree that the specific behaviours I noted are unbecoming of a Head of State. Feel free to say you don't think USA's image is tarnished on the world stage because of the President's antics. If you don't feel you're ready to dispute those two things, then I think my point has been made, and it's not “Orange man is bad”. Superficial as it may be, it is sufficient reason for me to conclude he's a bad President, irrespective of what he's like as a person or private citizen.

I'm not disputing them. I specifically said I concede that argument. They're superficial, vapid, banal arguments; and you keep reiterating them. This is my last response to them.

TSherbs
November 26th, 2020, 07:11 AM
I'm not disputing them. I specifically said I concede that argument. They're superficial, vapid, banal arguments; and you keep reiterating them. This is my last response to them.

It's just chat.

Happy Thanksgiving.

bunyip
November 26th, 2020, 07:30 PM
Ok, but why do you think they are shit policies? Just pick one if you like.
Why? You asked specifically for reasons why I (or others) might consider Trump a bad president. I told you. Are you trying to create an echo argument? Not interested; it's not even the right topic, as you should know if you read the rest of my post carefully.

Arising from a comment made by ASD, in what proportion of countries do you consider the USA's standing has risen in the last four years? You may include USA in the count, for the recent vote suggests it could lie among the negatives. Just curious.


One point of "whataboutism".
The point being that you appear not to have read my comments on that topic sufficiently carefully, for they are standalone. Whataboutism is a variant on tu quoque, and remains a logical fallacy. Assessment of actions is quite possible, and not helped by resort to that obfuscation.

Freddie
November 26th, 2020, 07:56 PM
The Beat Goes On ... The Beat Goes On

Drums Keep Pounding A Rhythm To The Brain

La De Da De De ... La De Da De Da

1967

My buddies are not 'Losers / Suckers'

Fred
Enjoyin' some Belvenie Quarter Century Old Single Malt Whiskey

Both my brudda and I served in combat....

I know who the Orange One Is And I ain't Gonna Waste My Time With It

Adios.......Mike Foxtrot..................

dneal
November 26th, 2020, 08:00 PM
Why? You asked specifically for reasons why I (or others) might consider Trump a bad president. I told you. Are you trying to create an echo argument? Not interested; it's not even the right topic, as you should know if you read the rest of my post carefully.

If we're going to criticize each other for reading carefully, I would submit that you could also go back and see what I asked. I reiterated in an attempt to clarify in several responses. I'm genuinely curious. I'm trying to initiate a conversation. Like I noted, that seems impossible in today's climate; and your posts reinforce my opinion.


Arising from a comment made by ASD, in what proportion of countries do you consider the USA's standing has risen in the last four years? You may include USA in the count, for the recent vote suggests it could lie among the negatives. Just curious.

I think most nations aren't happy with Trump, for a variety of reasons. I have a worldview on how countries act - usually in their self interest - that would detract from the topic at hand. I'm happy to discuss that sort of thing in another thread, if you like.

To reiterate, I'm not asking about Trump's personality or his behavior. That's clear to everyone. I'm asking about his policies and his job performance as the executive branch of the U.S. government. I'm somewhat taken aback that some refuse to address that point, and it's like trying to nail jello to a tree to get an answer.



The point being that you appear not to have read my comments on that topic sufficiently carefully, for they are standalone. Whataboutism is a variant on tu quoque, and remains a logical fallacy. Assessment of actions is quite possible, and not helped by resort to that obfuscation.

You either ignore or miss the point I made then. We'll just have to disagree on the appropriateness. The gist of tu quoque is still an accusation of hypocrisy. It is "A retort accusing an accuser of a similar offense or similar behavior." I did not do that. I did point out that other administrations did silly, embarrassing things, and that labeling the entirety of any administration because of that is superficial and without serious merit. That in fact is not tu quoque.

Now would you like to get back to my actual question? I'm not interested in these deflections.

Freddie
November 26th, 2020, 08:06 PM
Concur with TSherbs

Yes. While I doubt highly that Donald Trump is an actual racist, he has definitely created opportunity for racists to piggyback on many of his comments and policies, and opportunities for his opponents to label him. That incompetence in linguistics and self-awareness sows division, whether intentional or not, and a not-superficial example.[/QUOTE]

B.S. Pal......................

Fred

dneal
November 26th, 2020, 08:20 PM
Concur with TSherbs

Yes. While I doubt highly that Donald Trump is an actual racist, he has definitely created opportunity for racists to piggyback on many of his comments and policies, and opportunities for his opponents to label him. That incompetence in linguistics and self-awareness sows division, whether intentional or not, and a not-superficial example.

B.S. Pal......................

Fred

I'm not sure which you think is B.S. - that he's not an actual racist, or that he creates opportunities for racists?

Either way, the invective isn't necessary. Maybe you should make your posts before you open the single malt. The earlier one makes absolutely no sense.

Freddie
November 26th, 2020, 08:24 PM
Concur with TSherbs

Yes. While I doubt highly that Donald Trump is an actual racist, he has definitely created opportunity for racists to piggyback on many of his comments and policies, and opportunities for his opponents to label him. That incompetence in linguistics and self-awareness sows division, whether intentional or not, and a not-superficial example.

B.S. Pal......................

Fred

I'm not sure which you think is B.S. - that he's not an actual racist, or that he creates opportunities for racists? He is and he does. Both.

Either way, the invective isn't necessary. Maybe you should make your posts before you open the single malt. The earlier one makes absolutely no sense.

Thank You!

'Tis Fascinatin'.

Fred

TSherbs
November 26th, 2020, 08:24 PM
Your attempt at a "conversation," dneal, has resulted in exactly that: a conversation. But then you asked ASD his opinion, which he then gave at length, and because he did not alter his opinion (which he is not expected to do in any "conversation"), you called his points "superficial, vapid, and banal." Now you say again that bunyip's replies suggest that a "conversation" is not possible, yet his replies were exactly that of a conversation. You are "conversing."

It doesn't seem like you are interested in anything more than a fight with these two.

You replied to me that "allowing" his daughter to marry a Jew indicated that he was not a white supremacist/racist. First, I am not sure what control he had over his daughter's choice of religion in her partner that Trump had. Maybe some. Maybe none.

But more importantly, Trump's acceptance of Kushner and even his friendship with Netanyahu and Isreal are not indications that he is not a white supremacist or racist. Particularly when my examples were about African-Americans and Muslims (and of course, the birther slander against Obama was doubly wrong, because Obama was a long-standing Christian church goer--much more frequently than Trump has ever been). One can be a racist and love Isreal. One can be virulently racist against blacks and believe in the supremacy of "whiteness" and include Jews on the side of European Judeo-Christian supremacy. A racist against African-Americans (and Mexicans and Muslims) need not also be a racist against Jews. Unfortunately, racism and white supremacy come in many shades of evil, not just the absolute form that you seem to be suggesting. Should I add his repeated references to the "Kung Flu"?

This isn't "bombast" (your term). This is racist language and racist policies (like his banning of refugees from many Muslim countries). Or the detention, separation, and caging of families at border detention centers. Trump is quite skilled at blending his personal racism with his public speaking and his national "policies" (I shudder to use that term for Trump, hollow as his policies are).

TSherbs
November 26th, 2020, 08:32 PM
I'll also add his recent "policy" of contesting these election results and accusing state election leaders and other (vague) persons of wide-spread fraud. This is not bombast; this is a degradation of our election system and a grab for power, either now or in the future. It is a policy of undermining confidence in the hard work and professionalism of thousands of poll workers and officials dedicated to a safe, secure, and accurate election. This is, again, the overlapping of a cynical, manipulative individual and cynical policy and official action while in office.

Freddie
November 26th, 2020, 08:39 PM
I'll also add his recent "policy" of contesting these election results and accusing state election leaders and other (vague) persons of wide-spread fraud. This is not bombast; this is a degradation of our election system and a grab for power, either now or in the future. It is a policy of undermining confidence in the hard work and professionalism of thousands of poll workers and officials dedicated to a safe, secure, and accurate election. This is, again, the overlapping of a cynical, manipulative individual and cynical policy and official action while in office.

Hear! Hear!

Fred

dneal
November 26th, 2020, 08:40 PM
Your attempt at a "conversation," dneal, has resulted in exactly that: a conversation. But then you asked ASD his opinion, which he then gave at length, and because he did not alter his opinion (which he is not expected to do in any "conversation"), you called his points "superficial, vapid, and banal." Now you say again that bunyip's replies suggest that a "conversation" is not possible, yet his replies were exactly that of a conversation. You are "conversing."

It doesn't seem like you are interested in anything more than a fight with these two.

You replied to me that "allowing" his daughter to marry a Jew indicated that he was not a white supremacist/racist. First, I am not sure what control he had over his daughter's choice of religion in her partner that Trump had. Maybe some. Maybe none.

But more importantly, Trump's acceptance of Kushner and even his friendship with Netanyahu and Isreal are not indications that he is not a white supremacist or racist. Particularly when my examples were about African-Americans and Muslims (and of course, the birther slander against Obama was doubly wrong, because Obama was a long-standing Christian church goer--much more frequently than Trump has ever been). One can be a racist and love Isreal. One can be virulently racist against blacks and believe in the supremacy of "whiteness" and include Jews on the side of European Judeo-Christian supremacy. A racist against African-Americans (and Mexicans and Muslims) need not also be a racist against Jews. Unfortunately, racism and white supremacy come in many shades of evil, not just the absolute form that you seem to be suggesting. Should I add his repeated references to the "Kung Flu"?

This isn't "bombast" (your term). This is racist language and racist policies (like his banning of refugees from many Muslim countries). Or the detention, separation, and caging of families at border detention centers. Trump is quite skilled at blending his personal racism with his public speaking and his national "policies" (I shudder to use that term for Trump, hollow as his policies are).

Like I said, I was asking about what makes him bad other than his personality. I used "bombast" to describe that, because that's how I think of him. Bombastic.

I got lots of opinion of his bombast. I'm not interested in fighting, but I'm also not interested in running in circles. I tried to clarify my intent, to get back on course; but that appears an impossible task.

Your posts have been more substantive, and I appreciate that. I don't know that I'm convinced, but that's ok. I'm simply describing the counter argument I (personally) consider when I think about the issue. I think everyone carries some bigotry, if for no other reason than in group / out group psychology. Let's use the Proud Boys for a moment. They're often labeled a white supremacist group. I heard it enough that I finally did some homework. There is not a doubt in my mind that it invites white supremacists, but I don't believe it was ever the intent nor is it the "official" position; particularly when the current leader of the group is a black man of Cuban descent. I think the same is the case with Trump. It's easy for racists to cheer "building the wall". By extension, it's easy to label Trump and those who support the wall as being motivated solely by race. But the fact remains that there are many societal and economic arguments, valid or not, that justify a wall and have nothing to do with race.

Freddie
November 26th, 2020, 08:51 PM
Your attempt at a "conversation," dneal, has resulted in exactly that: a conversation. But then you asked ASD his opinion, which he then gave at length, and because he did not alter his opinion (which he is not expected to do in any "conversation"), you called his points "superficial, vapid, and banal." Now you say again that bunyip's replies suggest that a "conversation" is not possible, yet his replies were exactly that of a conversation. You are "conversing."

It doesn't seem like you are interested in anything more than a fight with these two.

You replied to me that "allowing" his daughter to marry a Jew indicated that he was not a white supremacist/racist. First, I am not sure what control he had over his daughter's choice of religion in her partner that Trump had. Maybe some. Maybe none.

But more importantly, Trump's acceptance of Kushner and even his friendship with Netanyahu and Isreal are not indications that he is not a white supremacist or racist. Particularly when my examples were about African-Americans and Muslims (and of course, the birther slander against Obama was doubly wrong, because Obama was a long-standing Christian church goer--much more frequently than Trump has ever been). One can be a racist and love Isreal. One can be virulently racist against blacks and believe in the supremacy of "whiteness" and include Jews on the side of European Judeo-Christian supremacy. A racist against African-Americans (and Mexicans and Muslims) need not also be a racist against Jews. Unfortunately, racism and white supremacy come in many shades of evil, not just the absolute form that you seem to be suggesting. Should I add his repeated references to the "Kung Flu"?

This isn't "bombast" (your term). This is racist language and racist policies (like his banning of refugees from many Muslim countries). Or the detention, separation, and caging of families at border detention centers. Trump is quite skilled at blending his personal racism with his public speaking and his national "policies" (I shudder to use that term for Trump, hollow as his policies are).

Like I said, I was asking about what makes him bad other than his personality. I used "bombast" to describe that, because that's how I think of him. Bombastic.

I got lots of opinion of his bombast. I'm not interested in fighting, but I'm also not interested in running in circles. I tried to clarify my intent, to get back on course; but that appears an impossible task.

Your posts have been more substantive, and I appreciate that. I don't know that I'm convinced, but that's ok. I'm simply describing the counter argument I (personally) consider when I think about the issue. I think everyone carries some bigotry, if for no other reason than in group / out group psychology. Let's use the Proud Boys for a moment. They're often labeled a white supremacist group. I heard it enough that I finally did some homework. There is not a doubt in my mind that it invites white supremacists, but I don't believe it was ever the intent nor is it the "official" position; particularly when the current leader of the group is a black man of Cuban descent. I think the same is the case with Trump. It's easy for racists to cheer "building the wall". By extension, it's easy to label Trump and those who support the wall as being motivated solely by race. But the fact remains that there are many societal and economic arguments, valid or not, that justify a wall and have nothing to do with race.

And ... The Beat Goes On

Fred

bunyip
November 26th, 2020, 08:55 PM
If we're going to criticize each other for reading carefully, I would submit that you could also go back and see what I asked. .... I'm genuinely curious. I'm trying to initiate a conversation. Like I noted, that seems impossible in today's climate; and your posts reinforce my opinion.
Your precise question was, again:
So a question for those who find him so objectionable. Specifically, what (other than his bombast) do you think makes him a bad President? And as a followup, what makes you think Joe Biden will be a good one (if you think that)?You asked, I answered (https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/32672-I-Cannot-Fathom-This-Election?p=309225&viewfull=1#post309225) as a courtesy, thinking you wanted to hear. That post, in its entirety, stands perfectly well for the present situation. It appears to me that you will find ample sources in your country to discuss the merits or otherwise of Trumpist actions, as well as opinion pieces in overseas press from people whose job it is to consider the USA (not my job).


The gist of tu quoque is still an accusation of hypocrisy. It is "A retort accusing an accuser of a similar offense or similar behavior." I did not do that. I did point out that other administrations did silly, embarrassing things, and that labeling the entirety of any administration because of that is superficial and without serious merit. That in fact is not tu quoque.
Adding a layer of indirection does not help. The base case of "You did X" -- "But you did Y (or X)" is unchanged by varying "you" to "he" or "they". You specifically granted that you were engaged in whataboutism and repeat it in the part I have quoted here. Nobody else said that so any case by you that it is vapid falls against you as the sole proponent of it.
Did the Trump administration do silly, embarrassing (several other adjectives come to mind) things? Might you rebut that on its merits rather than claiming by whataboutery that it is inconsequential? Or will you just agree and move on? ASD told you what he thought, exactly as requested. You don't seem to like it.


We'll just have to disagree on the appropriateness.
Very well. Good night.

fountainpenkid
November 26th, 2020, 09:19 PM
OMGGG
Yes, he "stokes" a number of ugly sentiments that linger in people, often knowingly. He is irrefutably a crude thinker and a callous and morally depraved man. But those are unfortunately at the bottom of my list for why he is one of the worst presidents we've had to date.
What matters are the policy outcomes...and they are terrible on the basic metric of protecting and advancing the interests of Americans:
1. He has A KUBRICK ELEVATOR's worth of blood on HIS (yes, his own tiny ones) hands for continuously, knowingly choosing a dangerously delayed and inadequate national response to the pandemic. Unforgivable. May he rot in hell. (I say this as someone with post-acute COVID myself)
2. He has taken significant action to degrade the environment--well past abandoning climate change measures, which are HUGE, but down to the basic public safety shit like hey, let's not let companies pollute water/air with mercury
3. DeVos as education secretary: "fuck you, poor people trying to get an education and becoming entangled with the for-profit scam! come out and play, fraudsters!" oh, and "let's stop caring that black children are subject to significant discrimination when it comes to disciplinary action, and we were studying that and trying to help schools understand how to mitigate this systemic issue that has significant long term effects on a person's life" whatevs!
(many many more)
50?.He promotes anarchists and breakdown of the basic systems of government, over and fucking over again. I'm tired of writing this shit out....but let's just say, his behavior of the last few weeks is in character. To my mind, refusing to support the democratic system is the last straw. The very last one! You can be the shittiest motherfucker you want in office, but if we can't throw you out, we have nothing...the government is no longer, even in the most charitable view, by and for the people. His behavior post-election behavior is the first of it's kind (i.e not directly affecting any person immediately) that has made my physically sick.

So yeah, fuck this whole character thing. I WISH I could be focused on the fact that he's been accused of sexual assault, that he's a creep, a fraud, expresses racist sentiments etc. But oh, the actions!

ethernautrix
November 27th, 2020, 01:29 AM
Trump has been talking up election fraud for many months, obscuring the more important fraud of voter suppression. He might not have invented voter suppression, but he and his people tried like a Mike Foxtroter to use those tactics against their perceived opposition base.

I don't like how the GOP stopped Obama from appointing a SCJ and how the SC is now stacked against liberal (not leftist) positions, such as the unrelenting attack on Roe v. Wade. Side note: November Foxtrot Whiskey a woman candidate would have survived the interview if she had cried -- especially about drinking beer.

One good thing about Trump and his administration is that the corruption is transparent. I don't doubt that corruption is intrinsic to politics, but there is no ignoring it. Which... I kindv miss, cos I have enough Sierra in my life that needs immediate attending to every goddamn day.

Speaking of which ... My friend has returned from the blood test portion of her chemo appointment, so I can't finish my thoughts at the moment.

ethernautrix
November 27th, 2020, 01:31 AM
P.S. Nods to Freddie for the alphabet thing.

kazoolaw
November 27th, 2020, 05:39 AM
Oh yeah, Trump was impeached for his behaviors while in office.

No, actually he wasn't. Articles of impeachment were brought and Trump was acquitted.

Clinton had Articles of Impeachment brought and was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

TSherbs
November 27th, 2020, 06:56 AM
Also added (with a nod to fountainpenkid): withdrawal from the Paris climate accord. Trump has mocked wind power (stupidly, really) and had been quite generally opposed to the idea of regulation and protection of environment (versus resource development). The recent denial by the army corps of engineers of the Alaska project is an interesting exception to the prior pattern. Trump has undercut national parks and other public land protections, and the EPA and the Clean Air/Water act--all of which I consider erroneous long-term policy decisions. I believe that our grandchildren's future depends on our strict regulations of environmental degradation and resource management. I think that the top half of Americans have to learn to do with less comfort and luxury and consumption or the whole system will collapse into chaos. Better that we have controlled reduction rather than free-market freefall.

TSherbs
November 27th, 2020, 07:05 AM
Oh yeah, Trump was impeached for his behaviors while in office.

No, actually he wasn't. Articles of impeachment were brought and Trump was acquitted.

Clinton had Articles of Impeachment brought and was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

Fair enough. But both results were the same, right? Both impeachments were approved in the House but acquitted in the Senate? Clinton was not successfully "impeached," either. (You seem to suggest a difference in the two outcomes here, I think).

kazoolaw
November 27th, 2020, 09:01 AM
You are correct. Clinton was also acquitted by the Senate, and also remained in office.

Clinton agreed to a suspension of his Arkansas law license for 5 years, and was fined $25,000. He also resigned from the Bar of the US Supreme Court.

TSherbs
November 27th, 2020, 09:48 AM
You are correct. Clinton was also acquitted by the Senate, and also remained in office.

Clinton agreed to a suspension of his Arkansas law license for 5 years, and was fined $25,000. He also resigned from the Bar of the US Supreme Court.

Yeah, lawyers lying under oath have more consequences. That's why, thus far, the lawyers for Trump, when in a courtroom in front of a judge, have been singing a different tune from what they say outside in front of cameras. So far. Desperation often produces the dishonesty. Even for lawyers.

Linger
November 27th, 2020, 10:33 AM
I just don’t get that lots of people don’t get it. “Massive election fraud” is the same as “we didn’t land on the moon, it was faked in a Hollywood studio”. How many thousands of individuals would have to synchronize their lies ad infinitum. Without a single one saying it didn’t happen (as in there was no election fraud, and we didn’t fake it in a Hollywood studio). It simply defies all logic. How can any sane person believe in those conspiracy nonsense?

TSherbs
November 27th, 2020, 10:46 AM
I just don’t get that lots of people don’t get it. “Massive election fraud” is the same as “we didn’t land on the moon, it was faked in a Hollywood studio”. How many thousands of individuals would have to synchronize their lies ad infinitum. Without a single one saying it didn’t happen (as in there was no election fraud, and we didn’t fake it in a Hollywood studio). It simply defies all logic. How can any sane person believe in those conspiracy nonsense?

America's ability to delude itself sometimes is astonishing. Our sense of exceptionalism has never been based on "truth" or intelligence. Indeed, we have a very strong anti-intellectual streak in our national ethos.

dneal
November 27th, 2020, 12:06 PM
I love a good conspiracy theory. This "election fraud" has just enough circumstantial evidence to sell. It's not convincing at this point, but it's pretty clever. It's certainly as plausible as "Russian Conspiracy" we put up with (and spent tens of millions on). People had no problem believing that one, so I have to agree with TSherbs that America's ability to delude itself is indeed astonishing.

Linger
November 27th, 2020, 12:17 PM
Well, that ability to delude oneself is not exclusive to the USA though...perhaps the scale is though..
how many Americans are part of/believe in the “flat earth society”? One and half million? Potential voters?

(apologies for me gloating...we in NL have our own, very distinct and very present issues...our senate of 100 seats currently houses 14 (f o u r t e e n !!!) different fractions of parties...try to get legislation past that...)

TSherbs
November 27th, 2020, 02:15 PM
Yes, parliamentary democracies have their own special challenges!

corgicoupe
November 27th, 2020, 05:21 PM
[QUOTE=fountainpenkid;309342]OMGGG
Yes, he "stokes" a number of ugly sentiments that linger in people, often knowingly. He is irrefutably a crude thinker and a callous and morally depraved man. But those are unfortunately at the bottom of my list for why he is one of the worst presidents we've had to date.
What matters are the policy outcomes...and they are terrible on the basic metric of protecting and advancing the interests of Americans:

Quite interesting that when I talk to folk who support his policies, particularly those who have small businesses and have benefited from the economic polices, then the fact that "He is irrefutably a crude thinker and a callous and morally depraved man" immediately climbs to the top of my list of why he is one of the worst presidents....

kazoolaw
November 28th, 2020, 07:48 AM
I just don’t get that lots of people don’t get it. “Massive election fraud” is the same as “we didn’t land on the moon, it was faked in a Hollywood studio”. How many thousands of individuals would have to synchronize their lies ad infinitum. Without a single one saying it didn’t happen (as in there was no election fraud, and we didn’t fake it in a Hollywood studio). It simply defies all logic. How can any sane person believe in those conspiracy nonsense?

America's ability to delude itself sometimes is astonishing. Our sense of exceptionalism has never been based on "truth" or intelligence. Indeed, we have a very strong anti-intellectual streak in our national ethos.

So those expressing concerns over, for example, the voting machines are delusional?

Chuck Naill
November 28th, 2020, 08:27 AM
I agree with Corniche, Mentally, Biden who has never been the brightest bulb in the box is clearly having mental, memory and focus issues. No wonder Harris agreed to be his VP, despite the mean and nasty accusations she threw at him earlier this year.
Personal ambition will always top party loyalty or national interest!
America has almost elected a confused, tired old man incapable of handling the extreme demands of the White House!
Sad for a large nation with millions of more talented and younger people.

For me, I find he is someone with whom I can identify. He has suffered what I consider the greatest loss a husband and father can experience. He has known both defeat and victory. Does that make him a great president? I'll just say that we have experienced the exact opposite.

Also, for me, I am not looking for perfection in performance, but I do hold leaders to a measure of having a moral center. Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan were not without flaws, but each had a moral center. People need something bigger than their own opinions as a guide.

However, you can follow whoever you wish.

Chuck Naill
November 28th, 2020, 08:31 AM
As it turned out, it simply was CLOSE — on election day and the 48 or so hours that followed — until it wasn't, and Biden won.

Close, in context, is a matter of objective numbers and not subjective values. There is no “should” in either forecasting or reviewing the outcome.


I don't think it's appropriate for foreigners to tell us how to run our country/election.

I neither intend nor pretend to do so, as a foreigner. Fortunately, objective facts (in accordance to governing rules) are there for all to see and agree on, no matter how much it elates or pains them individually that events didn't play out differently. I still think it's perfectly fine that someone now says, “My guy got beaten, by the rules of the game all must respect, irrespective of perception of merit. I wanted a different outcome, but the majority of my peers were against it. So be it; they have spoken. Until next time!”

I am very pleased you care enough to comment. I do not care for labeling someone a foreigner. I mean, I know what it means, but we all inhabit the same sphere and our actions can impact the globe if the an immoral person has power.

TSherbs
November 28th, 2020, 09:31 AM
I just don’t get that lots of people don’t get it. “Massive election fraud” is the same as “we didn’t land on the moon, it was faked in a Hollywood studio”. How many thousands of individuals would have to synchronize their lies ad infinitum. Without a single one saying it didn’t happen (as in there was no election fraud, and we didn’t fake it in a Hollywood studio). It simply defies all logic. How can any sane person believe in those conspiracy nonsense?

America's ability to delude itself sometimes is astonishing. Our sense of exceptionalism has never been based on "truth" or intelligence. Indeed, we have a very strong anti-intellectual streak in our national ethos.

So those expressing concerns over, for example, the voting machines are delusional?

The Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan company thing??

If "expressing concerns" means "believing that there was a conspiracy through the voting machines that defrauded the US electorate and gave Biden a 6-million vote and 70-point electoral vote victory," then, yes, I consider those "concerns" delusional. Even belief in any part of that statement is delusional.

Trump, for example, has stated that because he lost, the vote of his 73 million persons who voted for him was "stolen." That is either a manipulative lie or straight up delusion. Take your pick. Even state your pick here.

Trump also stated that there was a conspiracy to defraud him because big pharma ran ads against him. What a laughably stupid piece of logic that is. Again, he is either a manipulative liar or he is delusional. Take your pick.

And for anyone else to repeat these pieces of rhetoric is either, as I say, a manipulative liar or delusional person. Believing in them by itself is delusional.

Linger
November 28th, 2020, 09:38 AM
Thank you TSherbs. Your answer is more elaborate compared to what I intended to reply, which would have merely been: “yes”.

TSherbs
November 28th, 2020, 09:46 AM
Thank you TSherbs. Your answer is more elaborate compared to what I intended to reply, which would have merely been: “yes”.

:)

yeah, I took more words than was necessary

But, sometimes when you don't define your terms on the internet, someone comes along and retorts something like, "Isn't it just as delusional to believe that every voting machine worked exactly as it was supposed to?"

So, I tried to be clear, even though the question wasn't entirely precise in what it was pointing to.

Chuck Naill
November 28th, 2020, 09:48 AM
Some communicate better than others. The problem arises when your intent is to change other's opinions.

dneal
November 28th, 2020, 12:55 PM
I've seen the brief news articles of votes being switched by the machines, trucks showing up at polling stations with boxes of ballots, observers being denied the ability to observe, etc... Like I said earlier, it makes for a good conspiracy theory.

A couple of days ago, while browsing YouTube, Bloomberg Quicktake was airing the Pennsylvania hearings live. HERE is the link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHLFGtiQ8sY). It's almost 3 hours, and watched I 30 or 40 minutes of it.

For the most part, the people testifying appeared to be sincere. I don't think they (or Trump) have to be either liars or delusional to suspect (or believe) something nefarious took place. The manner in which Biden won is pretty novel, securing enough votes with enough voter turnout in basically four cities to swing four states to his column. When is the last time a Presidential nominee won an election while losing Ohio and Florida? There is more circumstantial evidence, but coincidence doesn't mean conspiracy.

What I find disturbing, and it only adds fuel to the conspiracy fire, is that the media is either ignoring or "hiding" claims. Labeling everything "Joe Biden is the projected winner" and "U.S. Elections are protected from fraud" does too. Media declaring certain points of view the approved canon, and blocking other views as heretical also exacerbates the problem. First it's any medical or expert opinion that doesn't agree with Fauci or the WHO on COVID earns blocks and/or locked social media accounts. Then they do the same thing with the Biden laptop issue. Now the election, and there's any wonder people have questions?

Anyway, finding Gregory Stenstrom's testimony at the Pennsylvania hearing wasn't easy, but I did finally find this video. He seems to be a rational, thoughtful person with some seemingly valid complaints that if true should cause some concern.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW3I7eFQbbo

TSherbs
November 28th, 2020, 01:37 PM
...seemingly valid complaints that if true....

...and this is how conspiracy delusion begins...with "seems" and "if" statements....and then they solidify in some minds into "truth" and a nefarious grand plan....

dneal
November 28th, 2020, 02:23 PM
...seemingly valid complaints that if true....

...and this is how conspiracy delusion begins...with "seems" and "if" statements....and then they solidify in some minds into "truth" and a nefarious grand plan....

Nothing like selective quoting, and extrapolating a point from introducing new context. You seem to have missed this:


Like I said earlier, it makes for a good conspiracy theory.


...coincidence doesn't mean conspiracy.

Out of curiosity, did you watch the video?

Anyway, you don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If there are shortcomings in the system which create the potential for fraud; they should be identified, discussed and rectified. Whether or not there was widespread fraud, and whether or not it changed the results of an election, is why we have a court system.

TSherbs
November 28th, 2020, 02:35 PM
...seemingly valid complaints that if true....

...and this is how conspiracy delusion begins...with "seems" and "if" statements....and then they solidify in some minds into "truth" and a nefarious grand plan....

Nothing like selective quoting, and extrapolating a point from introducing new context. Out of curiosity, did you watch the video?

Anyway, you don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If there are shortcomings in the system which create the potential for fraud; they should be identified, discussed and rectified. Whether or not there was widespread fraud, and whether or not it changed the results of an election, is why we have a court system.

I'll read the evidence if it is ever actually produced in a courtroom. I am not a fan of news conference theatrics. That's the bullshit of conspiracy.

Enough "ifs" for me. That is, by the way, exactly the kind of speculative stuff that has caused the judges to toss out so many cases. State boards review and certify their results. Which has been done. There is no meaningful fraud of any substantive value, for either side, in any state.

When an actual lawyer in front of a judge according to the rules of the state bar actually presents some evidence of fraud or conspiracy to defraud, I will read it. But no, not this video. Nor any video in reaction to it.

dneal
November 28th, 2020, 03:05 PM
...seemingly valid complaints that if true....

...and this is how conspiracy delusion begins...with "seems" and "if" statements....and then they solidify in some minds into "truth" and a nefarious grand plan....

Nothing like selective quoting, and extrapolating a point from introducing new context. Out of curiosity, did you watch the video?

Anyway, you don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If there are shortcomings in the system which create the potential for fraud; they should be identified, discussed and rectified. Whether or not there was widespread fraud, and whether or not it changed the results of an election, is why we have a court system.

I'll read the evidence if it is ever actually produced in a courtroom. I am not a fan of news conference theatrics. That's the bullshit of conspiracy.

Enough "ifs" for me. That is, by the way, exactly the kind of speculative stuff that has caused the judges to toss out so many cases. State boards review and certify their results. Which has been done. There is no meaningful fraud of any substantive value, for either side, in any state.

When an actual lawyer in front of a judge according to the rules of the state bar actually presents some evidence of fraud or conspiracy to defraud, I will read it. But no, not this video. Nor any video in reaction to it.

That's not a news conference. It's testimony to a Senate Committee. That testimony has prompted the Pennsylvania Legislature to consider exercising their power to appoint electors directly. The people in the video are those who signed affidavits. It's all the same evidence lawyers are submitting in their filings. I've got a link to the Sidney Powell's filing, but if you're not going to be bothered with 14 minutes of testimony from one witness (let alone the full 3 hours of testimony); I suspect you're not going to read 140 pages.

Sounds to me like you're just admitting that your opinion is uninformed.

TSherbs
November 28th, 2020, 04:53 PM
I just read the first 10 pages of the 104-pg document. It's not worth any more time from me. The ballot machine section starts the document and is entirely speculative. She offers no evidence that a single vote was changed. She in fact states that you can't see the changes. She only states that they "could be." That this document is 104 pages is not in itself impressive to me, nor has it been thus yet impressive to any judge. That's an argument called, "Please take our word for this spectral evidence." This did work in Salem in 1692. But so far, not in 2020.

So, in final answer to the question from kazoolaw, no, I am not concerned about fraud in the voting machines.

I predict that no states will decertify their results or push the election to a new slate of electors. What we have is a desperate lame duck president sowing his mistrust and persecution paranoia out among the populace, conning them all in their susceptibility. That's what con artists do. Mark Twain is rolling in his grave.

bunyip
November 28th, 2020, 05:08 PM
I read a couple of things this morning, already well publicised in the US.

Apparently a gentleman named Fredric Eshelman donated $2.5M to "True the Vote" which promised to file lawsuits in seven swing States regarding voter fraud. However, they appear to have dropped that program for want of evidence (akin to 38 failures by Trump-blessed teams, and they having distanced themselves from Sidney Powell of kraken fame), so Mr Eshelman is suing for return of his whole $2.5M, on apparent grounds of no sufficient actions or prospects of success.

Also, regarding affidavits:

... But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here-- Judge Stephanos Bibas, 3rd US circuit Court of Appeals, writing for three Republican-appointed judges upholding a lower court's dismissal of Guiliani's purported case.

I am always interested in some proper evidence.

welch
November 28th, 2020, 05:56 PM
Each time the Trump campaign has brought their evidence to court. different judges have asked a few questions, reminded the Trump lawyers that they could be disbarred for lying to a judge, and the evidence just evaporates. Case after case has been dismissed on grounds that Trump's lawyers presented no evidence. That happened in several counties in Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Consequently, the Trumpist Republican Party in the Pennsylvania legislature zig-zagged around courts and judges. That's what we see in the video that dneal posted above at 2:55pm. For the rest of the world, it is junk. It is insanity. Find a copy of Glaber, Levinson, and Tushnet, Constitutional Democracy in Crisis. Last week, I read the chapters about Hungary and Poland. Trump is working hard, but has not yet "achieved" the one-vote-and-domination of Fidesz and Law and Justice. My guess: the Republican Party of the US is splitting between a conservative party that believes in reality, and a Trumpist QAnon faction that accepts lunacy.

Long, long ago, when I first came to New York, I administered a psychiatric test to people being released from Bronx State Hospital. Two of the questions: (1) "Do you sometimes feel like, I don't know, maybe your're just walking down the street and you hear things that other people don't hear?" (2) "Sometimes, say, when you are walking on Southern Boulevard, does it seem like you see things that, maybe, other people don't see?"

That is psychosis, and Trumpists show evidence of being psychotics.

(Good luck, EU)

cj2020
November 28th, 2020, 06:24 PM
Trump has stoked a resurgence of ugly racism in this country. There is no excuse for that. I do not care what your political beliefs or leanings are. But,when you start to do mental gymnastics to justify or ignore his racism, you are done as far as I am concerned. As a person of color its hurtful to hear people try to justify his racism. Recognize that it is white privilege that allows one to say that Trumps racist behavior is not as important as all the other positive things he has done. Don't care!!

dneal
November 28th, 2020, 06:51 PM
I just read the first 10 pages of the 104-pg document. It's not worth any more time from me. The ballot machine section starts the document and is entirely speculative. She offers no evidence that a single vote was changed. She in fact states that you can't see the changes. She only states that they "could be." That this document is 104 pages is not in itself impressive to me, nor has it been thus yet impressive to any judge. That's an argument called, "Please take our word for this spectral evidence." This did work in Salem in 1692. But so far, not in 2020.

So, in final answer to the question from kazoolaw, no, I am not concerned about fraud in the voting machines.

I predict that no states will decertify their results or push the election to a new slate of electors. What we have is a desperate lame duck president sowing his mistrust and persecution paranoia out among the populace, conning them all in their susceptibility. That's what con artists do. Mark Twain is rolling in his grave.

So you've read 10 percent of a filing, and your mind is made up? That sounds like you simply confirmed your preexisting bias.

I'm not a Trump supporter, and I'm not a Trump hater. There are too many checks and balances in the system for any President to do much good or harm to the country. I am terribly disappointed in our media. I'll give a different example for this. Depending on the outlet, the SC "blocked" New York from limiting religious services. I read the opinion (all of them, to include the dissents). The SC approved an injunction preventing New York from limiting religious services until the lower court rules in the case. The dissents pointed out that New York had lifted their coding of the plaintiff's areas as "red", and said they should come back another day. The media is treating it like a Roe v Wade or Heller decision - one side decrying the ruling and the other cheering it. They haven't explained what actually happened.

Similarly, depending on the outlet, team Trump is either a sore loser and there's nothing to see since there is absolutely zero evidence of fraud; or the President is going to win reelection by preventing Biden from reaching 270 electoral votes (then it goes to the House, and the Republicans have the pertinent majority). From MSNBC to Newsmax, and everything in between; there's nothing but opinion, slanted left or right. We essentially have no credible, objective news media.

I watched most of the news event Giuliani and Co held a week or so ago. I saw no evidence presented - just accusations - so I waited for the filings. As noted earlier I happened across the Pennsylvania hearing, while it was live. I am not convinced that there is anywhere near the evidence required for Trump to prevail, and as I've said several times I fully expect for Biden to be inaugurated in January. There is definitely a lot of cause for concern in how future elections are held. Both Democrats and Republicans have previously warned of the danger of mail in ballot systems. Both Democrats and Republicans have warned of the dangers of electronic voting. In this election, we see all those warnings come to fruition. There is definitely evidence of negligence at best, and impropriety at worst. That undermines confidence in the system. It just happens to be the Republicans complaining this time. There is certainly opportunity for it to be Democrats in the future, as they have complained in the past when it didn't go there way.

That's the pertinence of the testimony in the 7 minute video. It's the pertinence of the affidavits (given by both Democrats and Republicans). There are many flaws in the system we executed this year, and we should correct those before 2022. You'll note (if you were to read more than 10% of the filings) that the affidavits and testimony referenced in the filings aren't actually attached - presumably to provide some anonymity. That's why the video of the Pennsylvania hearing is important. You can hear from the affiants directly.

dneal
November 28th, 2020, 06:59 PM
I read a couple of things this morning, already well publicised in the US.

Apparently a gentleman named Fredric Eshelman donated $2.5M to "True the Vote" which promised to file lawsuits in seven swing States regarding voter fraud. However, they appear to have dropped that program for want of evidence (akin to 38 failures by Trump-blessed teams, and they having distanced themselves from Sidney Powell of kraken fame), so Mr Eshelman is suing for return of his whole $2.5M, on apparent grounds of no sufficient actions or prospects of success.

Also, regarding affidavits:

... But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here-- Judge Stephanos Bibas, 3rd US circuit Court of Appeals, writing for three Republican-appointed judges upholding a lower court's dismissal of Guiliani's purported case.

I am always interested in some proper evidence.

Just to be clear, the "Trump-blessed team" is lead by Rudy Giuliani. They haven't had 38 failures. There have been many other lawsuits from various parties that have been dropped, rejected or dismissed; for a variety of reasons from lack of standing, lack of evidence, to consolidate with a different suit (or prevent redundancy) or because they obtained relief outside the court.

Also, the "distancing from Sidney Powell" (of an impeccable career as a Federal Prosecutor and successful defense of Michael Flynn fame) is a characterization by the left-er leaning media. The right varies on their theories as well, the most extreme being that she's assisting with a criminal case and therefore can't be in concert with the Trump team led by Giuliani. I find that a little far-fetched too.

dneal
November 28th, 2020, 07:23 PM
I just saw This Article (https://spectator.us/reasons-why-the-2020-presidential-election-is-deeply-puzzling/) posted on a different forum I frequent. While it is an opinion piece, it does lay out some of the peculiarities of this election concisely.

Note the same site also has articles titled You don’t have to be crazy to think the election was stolen. But it helps (https://spectator.us/dont-have-crazy-think-the-election-stolen-helps/) and The Powell movement. The revolution is devouring its children (https://spectator.us/sidney-powell-movement-trump-campaign-legal-team/), so there is some semblance of presenting each side of the aisle.

Anyway, the first piece is quoted in almost its entirety, because paywalls...


To say out-loud that you find the results of the 2020 presidential election odd is to invite derision. You must be a crank or a conspiracy theorist. Mark me down as a crank, then. I am a pollster and I find this election to be deeply puzzling. I also think that the Trump campaign is still well within its rights to contest the tabulations. Something very strange happened in America’s democracy in the early hours of Wednesday November 4 and the days that followed. It’s reasonable for a lot of Americans to want to find out exactly what.

First, consider some facts. President Trump received more votes than any previous incumbent seeking reelection. He got 11 million more votes than in 2016, the third largest rise in support ever for an incumbent. By way of comparison, President Obama was comfortably reelected in 2012 with 3.5 million fewer votes than he received in 2008.

Trump’s vote increased so much because, according to exit polls, he performed far better with many key demographic groups. Ninety-five percent of Republicans voted for him. He did extraordinarily well with rural male working-class whites.

He earned the highest share of all minority votes for a Republican since 1960. Trump grew his support among black voters by 50 percent over 2016. Nationally, Joe Biden’s black support fell well below 90 percent, the level below which Democratic presidential candidates usually lose.

Trump increased his share of the national Hispanic vote to 35 percent. With 60 percent or less of the national Hispanic vote, it is arithmetically impossible for a Democratic presidential candidate to win Florida, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico. Bellwether states swung further in Trump’s direction than in 2016. Florida, Ohio and Iowa each defied America’s media polls with huge wins for Trump. Since 1852, only Richard Nixon has lost the electoral college after winning this trio, and that 1960 defeat to John F. Kennedy is still the subject of great suspicion.

Midwestern states Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin always swing in the same direction as Ohio and Iowa, their regional peers. Ohio likewise swings with Florida. Current tallies show that, outside of a few cities, the Rust Belt swung in Trump’s direction. Yet, Biden leads in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin because of an apparent avalanche of black votes in Detroit, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee. Biden’s ‘winning’ margin was derived almost entirely from such voters in these cities, as coincidentally his black vote spiked only in exactly the locations necessary to secure victory. He did not receive comparable levels of support among comparable demographic groups in comparable states, which is highly unusual for the presidential victor.

We are told that Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history. But he won a record low of 17 percent of counties; he only won 524 counties, as opposed to the 873 counties Obama won in 2008. Yet, Biden somehow outdid Obama in total votes.

Victorious presidential candidates, especially challengers, usually have down-ballot coattails; Biden did not. The Republicans held the Senate and enjoyed a ‘red wave’ in the House, where they gained a large number of seats while winning all 27 toss-up contests. Trump’s party did not lose a single state legislature and actually made gains at the state level.

Another anomaly is found in the comparison between the polls and non-polling metrics. The latter include: party registrations trends; the candidates’ respective primary votes; candidate enthusiasm; social media followings; broadcast and digital media ratings; online searches; the number of (especially small) donors; and the number of individuals betting on each candidate.

Despite poor recent performances, media and academic polls have an impressive 80 percent record predicting the winner during the modern era. But, when the polls err, non-polling metrics do not; the latter have a 100 percent record. Every non-polling metric forecast Trump’s reelection. For Trump to lose this election, the mainstream polls needed to be correct, which they were not. Furthermore, for Trump to lose, not only did one or more of these metrics have to be wrong for the first time ever, but every single one had to be wrong, and at the very same time; not an impossible outcome, but extremely unlikely nonetheless.

Atypical voting patterns married with misses by polling and non-polling metrics should give observers pause for thought. Adding to the mystery is a cascade of information about the bizarre manner in which so many ballots were accumulated and counted.

The following peculiarities also lack compelling explanations:

1. Late on election night, with Trump comfortably ahead, many swing states stopped counting ballots. In most cases, observers were removed from the counting facilities. Counting generally continued without the observers

2. Statistically abnormal vote counts were the new normal when counting resumed. They were unusually large in size (hundreds of thousands) and had an unusually high (90 percent and above) Biden-to-Trump ratio

3. Late arriving ballots were counted. In Pennsylvania, 23,000 absentee ballots have impossible postal return dates and another 86,000 have such extraordinary return dates they raise serious questions

4. The failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots. The destruction of mail in ballot envelopes, which must contain signatures

5. Historically low absentee ballot rejection rates despite the massive expansion of mail voting. Such is Biden’s narrow margin that, as political analyst Robert Barnes observes, ‘If the states simply imposed the same absentee ballot rejection rate as recent cycles, then Trump wins the election’

6. Missing votes. In Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 50,000 votes held on 47 USB cards are missing

7. Non-resident voters. Matt Braynard’s Voter Integrity Project estimates that 20,312 people who no longer met residency requirements cast ballots in Georgia. Biden’s margin is 12,670 votes

8. Serious ‘chain of custody’ breakdowns. Invalid residential addresses. Record numbers of dead people voting. Ballots in pristine condition without creases, that is, they had not been mailed in envelopes as required by law

9. Statistical anomalies. In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch. It is particularly perplexing that all statistical anomalies and tabulation abnormalities were in Biden’s favor. Whether the cause was simple human error or nefarious activity, or a combination, clearly something peculiar happened.

If you think that only weirdos have legitimate concerns about these findings and claims, maybe the weirdness lies in you.

bunyip
November 28th, 2020, 08:00 PM
...

I am always interested in some proper evidence.
Just to be clear, ... No case (38 mentioned) has succeeded in changing any result nor even produced evidence for reasonable doubt. Still nothing.


Also, the "distancing from Sidney Powell"...
I look forward to Mayor Giuliani spearheading the legal effort to defend OUR RIGHT to FREE and FAIR ELECTIONS! Rudy Giuliani, Joseph diGenova, Victoria Toensing, Sidney Powell, and Jenna Ellis, a truly great team... -- Donald J Trump @realDonaldTrump
“Sidney Powell is practicing [sic] law on her own. She is not a member of the Trump Legal Team. She is also not a lawyer for the President in his personal capacity,” Rudy Giuliani Attorney for President Trump another lawyer for Trump, and Jenna Ellis, Trump Campaign Senior Legal Adviser and Attorney for President Trump.(My emphases)

Why do you bother with these prevarications, when these things are published by the protagonists? Mentioning some new unknown which seems like it might explain it if, if, if?
What if the explanation is simply that she is a crank? Some people say she is, I don't know, but many people say that and if she is that is very serious, and something needs to be done about it.

dneal
November 28th, 2020, 08:15 PM
...

I am always interested in some proper evidence.
Just to be clear, ... No case (38 mentioned) has succeeded in changing any result nor even produced evidence for reasonable doubt. Still nothing.


Also, the "distancing from Sidney Powell"...
I look forward to Mayor Giuliani spearheading the legal effort to defend OUR RIGHT to FREE and FAIR ELECTIONS! Rudy Giuliani, Joseph diGenova, Victoria Toensing, Sidney Powell, and Jenna Ellis, a truly great team... -- Donald J Trump @realDonaldTrump
“Sidney Powell is practicing [sic] law on her own. She is not a member of the Trump Legal Team. She is also not a lawyer for the President in his personal capacity,” Rudy Giuliani Attorney for President Trump another lawyer for Trump, and Jenna Ellis, Trump Campaign Senior Legal Adviser and Attorney for President Trump.(My emphases)

Why do you bother with these prevarications, when these things are published by the protagonists? Mentioning some new unknown which seems like it might explain it if, if, if?
What if the explanation is simply that she is a crank? Some people say she is, I don't know, but many people say that and if she is that is very serious, and something needs to be done about it.

Like I said earlier, I'm disappointed with the media that can't just give us the straight news without the political spin (whichever direction that leans). Just a couple of weeks ago we had one news outlet claiming that Kushner was advising Trump to concede, and another claiming Kushner was advising Trump to fight it out.

It's too early to say whether or not the suits from the President's team will be successful or not (although I think not). They just filed the main ones on what, Wednesday? One was dismissed by a district court because the evidence didn't show enough votes would have been changed to alter the outcome, and in another a judge issued an order that Pennsylvania couldn't certify their votes. The question will be whether or not the Supreme Court takes up any of the cases. The other question will be what legislatures (if any) do anything. It's going to be ugly one way or another, with half the country claiming the election was stolen - either by corrupt electoral commissions or corrupt judges (or legislatures). Honestly, the worst outcome for the Democratic party is probably that Trump loses his suits, the legislatures do nothing, and Biden is inaugurated. 2022 will likely be a bloodbath for them.

Honestly, I've wondered if Sidney Powell is a crank. It's not her history, but it's plausible. Her otherwise respected history combined with some pretty serious (if not outrageous) claims play right into the conspiracists argument.

bunyip
November 28th, 2020, 08:16 PM
The quickest and easiest thing to look up was this comment.


...when the polls err, non-polling metrics do not; the latter have a 100 percent record. Every non-polling metric forecast Trump’s reelection.
Garbage.

The first three I checked, using economic, market and unemployment data (all non-poll) from different entities all predicted a Biden win; one with the caveat that Trump would win on average turnout, Biden with high turnout, and there was high turnout.

bunyip
November 28th, 2020, 08:22 PM
Honestly, I've wondered if Sidney Powell is a crank. It's not her history, but it's plausible. Her otherwise respected history combined with some pretty serious (if not outrageous) claims play right into the conspiracists argument.
Your usually sound expression somehow fails when you wish to prevaricate again. :rolleyes:

It plays right into the case that she is herself a conspiracist.

I've enough of this rubbish for now.

dneal
November 28th, 2020, 08:24 PM
The quickest and easiest thing to look up was this comment.


...when the polls err, non-polling metrics do not; the latter have a 100 percent record. Every non-polling metric forecast Trump’s reelection.
Garbage.

The first three I checked, using economic, market and unemployment data (all non-poll) from different entities all predicted a Biden win; one with the caveat that Trump would win on average turnout, Biden with high turnout, and there was high turnout.

I'm not sure what the author or you are citing, but I'll concede that specific point for the sake of argument. It doesn't mean the rest of it is false though, and a lot of it isn't. There was a lot of weird shit that happened in this election. It could also be a perfect storm. Trump's team broke the "blue wall" in 2016. No one thought that would happen. Maybe Biden's team just outsmarted Trump and got an enormous amount of legitimate votes in key cities. Atlanta in particular is pretty believable for me.

The main point of that piece is that it's not completely crazy to think something is up, given all the anomalies when compared to "usual" electoral strategies. It's what makes for such a clever conspiracy theory. It's plausible.

dneal
November 28th, 2020, 08:25 PM
Honestly, I've wondered if Sidney Powell is a crank. It's not her history, but it's plausible. Her otherwise respected history combined with some pretty serious (if not outrageous) claims play right into the conspiracists argument.
Your usually sound expression somehow fails when you wish to prevaricate again. :rolleyes:

It plays right into the case that she is herself a conspiracist.

I've enough of this rubbish for now.

You know, I'm trying to have a reasonable conversation. If you want to be an asshole, I can play at that too. You'll get butthurt, others will pile on in your defense; and none of it will bother me in the least.

welch
November 28th, 2020, 08:51 PM
The latest judge to dismiss a Trumpist suit that attempts to overthrow the election in Pennsylvania:


The Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed with prejudice a Republican lawsuit seeking to invalidate more than 2.5 million votes cast by mail in the general election, the latest in a string of legal defeats for the GOP as President Trump fails to undo his losses in key battleground states.

Justices on the state high court ruled unanimously late Saturday that Republican petitioners waited too long to file their suit challenging Act 77, the 2019 law that established universal mail voting in Pennsylvania. Trump allies had asked the court to invalidate all votes cast by mail in the most recent election or direct the majority-Republican legislature to choose a slate of presidential electors. The ruling with prejudice means that the plaintiffs are barred from bringing another action on the same claim.

The court’s written order called the latter option “extraordinary,” noting that it would disenfranchise 6.9 million voters.

“The want of due diligence demonstrated in this matter is unmistakable,” the justices wrote, noting that the lawsuit was filed “more than one year” after no-excuse mail voting was enacted in Pennsylvania. The order blamed petitioners for a “complete failure to act with due diligence in commencing their facial constitutional challenge, which was ascertainable upon Act 77’s enactment.”

Concurring, Justice David N. Wecht noted that the GOP petitioners “failed to allege that even a single mail-in ballot was fraudulently cast or counted.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pennsylvania-supreme-court-dismisses-lawsuit-against-mail-ballots-with-prejudice-in-another-defeat-for-trump/2020/11/28/d1d50ef4-31d2-11eb-96c2-aac3f162215d_story.html

Note that this lawsuit caused Republican hearts to flutter on Wednesday when an obscure local judge in Pittsburgh asked that vote-counting be stopped for lower races.

Previously, judges have tossed the other Republican suits on grounds that the Republican lawyers -- Giuliani and Ellis -- had neglected to bring proof of vote fraud. I think one judge, having run out of patience, reminded the Republicans that anyone can say anything at a press conference, but that the judge's court requires proof.

The Trumpist hogwash is draining into the sewer.

Freddie
November 28th, 2020, 11:37 PM
I've seen the brief news articles of votes being switched by the machines, trucks showing up at polling stations with boxes of ballots, observers being denied the ability to observe, etc... Like I said earlier, it makes for a good conspiracy theory.

A couple of days ago, while browsing YouTube, Bloomberg Quicktake was airing the Pennsylvania hearings live. HERE is the link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHLFGtiQ8sY). It's almost 3 hours, and watched I 30 or 40 minutes of it.

For the most part, the people testifying appeared to be sincere. I don't think they (or Trump) have to be either liars or delusional to suspect (or believe) something nefarious took place. The manner in which Biden won is pretty novel, securing enough votes with enough voter turnout in basically four cities to swing four states to his column. When is the last time a Presidential nominee won an election while losing Ohio and Florida? There is more circumstantial evidence, but coincidence doesn't mean conspiracy.

What I find disturbing, and it only adds fuel to the conspiracy fire, is that the media is either ignoring or "hiding" claims. Labeling everything "Joe Biden is the projected winner" and "U.S. Elections are protected from fraud" does too. Media declaring certain points of view the approved canon, and blocking other views as heretical also exacerbates the problem. First it's any medical or expert opinion that doesn't agree with Fauci or the WHO on COVID earns blocks and/or locked social media accounts. Then they do the same thing with the Biden laptop issue. Now the election, and there's any wonder people have questions?

Anyway, finding Gregory Stenstrom's testimony at the Pennsylvania hearing wasn't easy, but I did finally find this video. He seems to be a rational, thoughtful person with some seemingly valid complaints that if true should cause some concern.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW3I7eFQbbo

And...............The Beat Goes On.....In a Hotel Ballroom......Anecdotal Evidence......

Charges require specific allegations and then without any magic.......Proof......... Failing that.. 'tis all B.S.
Ya see in court these bozos are bound by professional ethics.

Fred
Say good night Gracie.....................Good Nite

TSherbs
November 29th, 2020, 05:22 AM
. That's why the video of the Pennsylvania hearing is important. You can hear from the affiants directly.

None of this matters until it is in front of a judge in a court of law in a case being heard (not being tossed out).

That something *could* be wrong is a far cry from that someone *is* wrong. It *could have* been the case that my neighbor filled out my ballot for me fraudulently. To have grounds to rescind my vote one would have to prove, through evidence, not speculation, that he did. To rescind an election, one would have to prove this for tens of thousands of votes. So far, it's not even been shown to be true for even one vote.

Look, you've said that you like conspiracy theories. So, yeah, you'll like this one too. But I think that you're mindset is being played by con artists out to further their careers.

Chuck Naill
November 29th, 2020, 05:38 AM
Perhaps why this matters is that we want fair play. Sports teaches us to to win we should follow the rules of that particular game. We come to dislikes those that cheat aka break the rules. Ironically the Houston Astros were pretty much vilified for cheating and yet when we see the same thing occurs in more important leadership roles, and if those leaders are giving us something we want, we overlook their cheating.

Some personalities appear to only be happy when their world adapts to them rather than they having to adapt to their world. So, when a white male, HS educated person sees a foreigner come to their country and do better than them, they are outraged. What is interesting is, the white male may think the immigrant is better off or more happy because of the way we are taught to measure success. I was raised by a grandfather, a white male with a sixth grade education, what was loved by his community and could build or repair most anything. Not that he was the happiest person on Earth, but he seemed to be genuinly at peace with himself and thankful for what he had.

My concern for some is the amount of time they spend on these sorts of things. When they are laying on the death bed, will they look back and say they should have done more to show that Trump was cheated out of votes. I truly doubt they will.

What I want is normalcy. I don't want a person leading that produces a daily drama Tweet. Just do your job.

Also, since everyone doesn't look like me and have my same experiences, I don't expect them to share what I want. That said, I want to live in a way that says, "if it's important to you, it's important to me" because in that way I will treat them as I want to be treated.

TSherbs
November 29th, 2020, 07:26 AM
... Trump's team broke the "blue wall" in 2016. No one thought that would happen....

That's simply not true. Your argument here is based on three errors:

1) that "no one" predicted that Trump would win the states that Dems had won recently.

2) that this surprise would therefore be expected to occur again in 2020

3) that not winning these same states again in 2020 would mean that there might be foul play


All three of these premises or attempts at logic are false.


The main point of that piece is that it's not completely crazy to think something is up, given all the anomalies when compared to "usual" electoral strategies. It's what makes for such a clever conspiracy theory. It's plausible.

If you believe that the computer theory is true,then, yes, it is crazy. If you are simply mildly entertained by the theory, then, yes, it isn't "completely crazy." I was mildly entertained by that flat-earther in California who shot his home-made rocket into the air. Unfortunately, the gravitational pull of the round earth toward its center of mass killed him. "Mad" Mike Hughes, for a reason.

Watch out for what belief in the "plausibility" of this theory does to you. Powell, like the gentleman in the rocket, is at that moment in the peak of the arc of her notoriety.

dneal
November 29th, 2020, 07:46 AM
. That's why the video of the Pennsylvania hearing is important. You can hear from the affiants directly.

None of this matters until it is in front of a judge in a court of law in a case being heard (not being tossed out).

That something *could* be wrong is a far cry from that someone *is* wrong. It *could have* been the case that my neighbor filled out my ballot for me fraudulently. To have grounds to rescind my vote one would have to prove, through evidence, not speculation, that he did. To rescind an election, one would have to prove this for tens of thousands of votes. So far, it's not even been shown to be true for even one vote.

Look, you've said that you like conspiracy theories. So, yeah, you'll like this one too. But I think that you're mindset is being played by con artists out to further their careers.

I like good conspiracy theories, but that doesn’t mean I believe them. The lengths people go to, to “prove” the moon landings were fake or that a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon is impressive from a perspective of tenacity and inventiveness.

This one is good simply because of the sheer amount of circumstantial evidence and anomalies. I’m amazed at the amount of amateur statisticians proving and disproving each other’s hypothesis about the “spikes”. Again, the perception of “cover up” only strengthens people’s belief that there is a conspiracy.

But no matter how many times I say that, some keep insisting that I’m being disingenuous and have some other motive... or that I am prevaricating. I have not, to my knowledge, been anything but bluntly honest in my posts on this forum; and I see no need to do otherwise now.

I find the whole thing interesting from an academic perspective. I don’t really care what the outcome is although I will laugh my ass off if Trump is somehow successful in securing a second term. The Schadenfreude would be delicious. Now that I think about it, I might actually appreciate Trump’s boorish antics a little bit simply because it gets under so many people’s skin.

All that notwithstanding, I can still see that there are / were problems with this election, just like I saw that “hanging chads” were a problem in the Bush/Gore election. The outright refusal of some to acknowledge problems in this go-round seems to be indicative of TDS. Most of this discussion just reinforces my earlier point on how discourse is all but impossible since people are firmly entrenched in their camps. The penchant for false dichotomies and absolutist thinking, refusing to consider any notion other than the preconceived is flabbergasting.

dneal
November 29th, 2020, 07:55 AM
That's simply not true. Your argument here is based on three errors:

1) that "no one" predicted that Trump would win the states that Dems had won recently.

2) that this surprise would therefore be expected to occur again in 2020

3) that not winning these same states again in 2020 would mean that there might be foul play


All three of these premises or attempts at logic are false.


The main point of that piece is that it's not completely crazy to think something is up, given all the anomalies when compared to "usual" electoral strategies. It's what makes for such a clever conspiracy theory. It's plausible.

If you believe that the computer theory is true,then, yes, it is crazy. If you are simply mildly entertained by the theory, then, yes, it isn't "completely crazy." I was mildly entertained by that flat-earther in California who shot his home-made rocket into the air. Unfortunately, the gravitational pull of the round earth toward its center of mass killed him. "Mad" Mike Hughes, for a reason.

Watch out for what belief in the "plausibility" of this theory does to you. Powell, like the gentleman in the rocket, is at that moment in the peak of the arc of her notoriety.

Why engage in this selective quoting and pedantry? Yes, you are correct that “no one” - being a universal - is easy to “disprove”. Michael Moore in particular warned that Hillary was going to lose Michigan. Kelly Anne Conway often stated that they intended to win Michigan. They were laughed at, hence the colloquial “no one thought”. GMAFB already...

TSherbs
November 29th, 2020, 08:19 AM
Why engage in this selective quoting...

Easier on the eyes for other readers.

And I am not interested in much of the rest of your comment, including the insult that immediately followed this.

I am done with this thread. I answered kazoolaw's question, but he appears to be gone and never answered his own question.

Freddie
November 29th, 2020, 03:18 PM
. That's why the video of the Pennsylvania hearing is important. You can hear from the affiants directly.

None of this matters until it is in front of a judge in a court of law in a case being heard (not being tossed out).

That something *could* be wrong is a far cry from that someone *is* wrong. It *could have* been the case that my neighbor filled out my ballot for me fraudulently. To have grounds to rescind my vote one would have to prove, through evidence, not speculation, that he did. To rescind an election, one would have to prove this for tens of thousands of votes. So far, it's not even been shown to be true for even one vote.

Look, you've said that you like conspiracy theories. So, yeah, you'll like this one too. But I think that you're mindset is being played by con artists out to further their careers.

I like good conspiracy theories, but that doesn’t mean I believe them. The lengths people go to, to “prove” the moon landings were fake or that a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon is impressive from a perspective of tenacity and inventiveness.

This one is good simply because of the sheer amount of circumstantial evidence and anomalies. I’m amazed at the amount of amateur statisticians proving and disproving each other’s hypothesis about the “spikes”. Again, the perception of “cover up” only strengthens people’s belief that there is a conspiracy.

But no matter how many times I say that, some keep insisting that I’m being disingenuous and have some other motive... or that I am prevaricating. I have not, to my knowledge, been anything but bluntly honest in my posts on this forum; and I see no need to do otherwise now.

I find the whole thing interesting from an academic perspective. I don’t really care what the outcome is although I will laugh my ass off if Trump is somehow successful in securing a second term. The Schadenfreude would be delicious. Now that I think about it, I might actually appreciate Trump’s boorish antics a little bit simply because it gets under so many people’s skin.

All that notwithstanding, I can still see that there are / were problems with this election, just like I saw that “hanging chads” were a problem in the Bush/Gore election. The outright refusal of some to acknowledge problems in this go-round seems to be indicative of TDS. Most of this discussion just reinforces my earlier point on how discourse is all but impossible since people are firmly entrenched in their camps. The penchant for false dichotomies and absolutist thinking, refusing to consider any notion other than the preconceived is flabbergasting.

Good hobby you have re Conspiracy theories..We all need hobbies...Honesty is the best policy..Of course it is..
So it is fascinatin' from a academic perspective ... Don't worry re laughing your ass off.....In New York City we 're
use to his BS since 1980 {I speak for myself only}...No freakin problemo with the election.....

And the beat goes on.

Still your friend and mine..

Fred
enjoyin' some Karuizawa 1985......

welch
November 29th, 2020, 05:36 PM
dcneal wrote


All that notwithstanding, I can still see that there are / were problems with this election, just like I saw that “hanging chads” were a problem in the Bush/Gore election. The outright refusal of some to acknowledge problems in this go-round seems to be indicative of TDS. Most of this discussion just reinforces my earlier point on how discourse is all but impossible since people are firmly entrenched in their camps. The penchant for false dichotomies and absolutist thinking, refusing to consider any notion other than the preconceived is flabbergasting.

The votes have been counted and recounted. Joe Biden received enough votes in enough states to win the election in December. No doubt.

Yes, a collection of psychotics claim to have seen votes dumped from trucks, votes teleported from Mars, sad Republican vote referees kept ten feet from the counting tables, rather than rather than the six feet they wanted, and even people howling "Biden crime family" over and over. None of them have had the guts to swear on a stack of bibles in court to what they have told conspiracy websites.

Further, the argument that Trump must have won Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin in 2020 because he surprised pollster in 2016 is all nonsense. We know that Trump won those states in 2016 by small margins, and we saw that the Biden campaign concentrated there. The Democratic Party worked hard, knowing that they would win if they won the same states that Clinton won plus those three "swing" states.

In addition, the results in all three states, plus Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada, are pretty close to what FiveThirtyEight predicted based on all the polls. Pennsylvania and Michigan were predicted to be strong Democratic states; Georgia was a toss-up. So it was.

The dangerous element: more than 50% of Republicans -- I call them Trumpists, rather than Republicans -- insist that Trump won the election. As each state carefully recounted, Trumpists now claim that all voting machines magically changed Trump votes to Biden, so recounts cannot spot the change. This is Sidney Powell's "kraken" argument: the conspiracy covered itself so it cannot be detected. Anyone who studies conspiracy theory will recognize this as the "self-sealing" quality by which real-world evidence cannot break into the conspiracists' fantasy. "Of course the mainstream media says that because that's what THEY want you to believe".

It is mass psychosis, as well as a treasonous resurrection of the right-wing German "stab-in-the-back" baloney to explain the German defeat in WW1.

dneal
November 29th, 2020, 07:27 PM
The argument against votes being counted and recounted is that (as posited in the 7 minute video): if you recount fraudulent votes you will indeed arrive at the same fraudulent total. The problem with that is actually proving fraud.

I'm not convinced on the credibility of the "truckload of vote" arguments. Yes people have made that claim under penalty of perjury, so I suppose it's possible; but it's also possible that they're just decent people who are mistaken. I don't see the need to call them psychotics.

I am troubled with preventing designated poll watchers from observing ballots. My understanding is that they are supposed to be able to inspect certain features, like the envelope, postmark, signature, etc... and can contest a ballot. It seems pretty credible that they were prevented from this at some polling stations, court orders were issued and in some cases ignored. Is that concrete evidence of fraud? Of course not, but it does raise eyebrows and creates the appearance of impropriety. It needs to be fixed, so the people have faith in their elections and the ability of parties to claim fraud is diminished.

I don't disagree with your argument on the Dem party working hard in the swing states, and it's entirely possible that targeted "get out the vote" efforts in key metropolitan cities was decisive. The opposing argument seems to be in regard to whether the votes in those cities were cast locally, or mailed in; and the argument appears to be that they were mailed in (prompting claims of fraud). I don't know how you prove any of that in court.

Yes, many Trump supporters think Trump won. Many Hillary supporters thought she won if it weren't for Russian Collusion, or they argue that the popular vote should matter more. Bush also lost to Gore, according to many Democrats; and I'm sure if we went further back we could find more accusations from either side. To me, that's just signal to noise that I squelch. What's important is that we refine our system to reduce the ability of either camp to rationally claim that - regardless of motive. Every party has its fringe, and those will never be happy. Reasonable people from either side of the spectrum could also be led to doubt the validity of an election.

At least the Trumpists are unlikely to riot and burn cities down, or "mostly peacefully protest", to use CNN's phrasing.

--edit--

I finally found the 3rd Circuit's opinion. Two things:

1. Apparently Pennsylvania allows each county to determine how observers observe. Neither party has the right to "inspect" ballot envelopes or ballots.
2. The opinion is pretty scathing, mainly to the lawyers and what they filed. It notes what they should have done vice what they did.

The .pdf of the opinion is HERE (https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/203371np.pdf)

kazoolaw
November 30th, 2020, 04:56 AM
I answered kazoolaw's question, but he appears to be gone and never answered his own question.

No, actually he didn't. TSherbs likes to change, or evade, a question he won't answer. My question was "So those expressing concerns over, for example, the voting machines are delusional?"

Didn't ask for his opinion, knew that already.

TS knew that to answer the actual question would back him into a corner, so he didn't answer it. Then he told you he did, thinking you wouldn't remember the actual question or wouldn't take the time to check.

And so the question remains....

Ray-VIgo
November 30th, 2020, 07:17 AM
Based on the circumstances, it is very much possible to make a case for errors, or at least irregularities, in the process in a number of locations, but proof sufficient to establish fraud is much more difficult. I've struggled since seeing these lawsuits with the question of a judge adopting a remedy as an endgame. My experience is that it's difficult to get an injunction, mandamus, declaratory judgment, etc. in the way of extraordinary remedies from a judge. It's not impossible but you carry a burden to persuade the judge. I'd hate to be in the plaintiff's chair and telling the judge I want an injunction to stop the entire election and certification process. Maybe it's the restraint of our local judges here, but I can just hear the old, "counsel, you make some points, but you're sure asking for a lot here".

TSherbs
November 30th, 2020, 10:14 AM
I answered kazoolaw's question, but he appears to be gone and never answered his own question.

No, actually he didn't. TSherbs likes to change, or evade, a question he won't answer. My question was "So those expressing concerns over, for example, the voting machines are delusional?"

Didn't ask for his opinion, knew that already.

TS knew that to answer the actual question would back him into a corner, so he didn't answer it. Then he told you he did, thinking you wouldn't remember the actual question or wouldn't take the time to check.

And so the question remains....


How is what I wrote, quoted below, not an answer to your question? Why all this nonsense about me "not answering a question" or "being backed into a corner"? What "corner" is that?






I just don’t get that lots of people don’t get it. “Massive election fraud” is the same as “we didn’t land on the moon, it was faked in a Hollywood studio”. How many thousands of individuals would have to synchronize their lies ad infinitum. Without a single one saying it didn’t happen (as in there was no election fraud, and we didn’t fake it in a Hollywood studio). It simply defies all logic. How can any sane person believe in those conspiracy nonsense?

America's ability to delude itself sometimes is astonishing. Our sense of exceptionalism has never been based on "truth" or intelligence. Indeed, we have a very strong anti-intellectual streak in our national ethos.

So those expressing concerns over, for example, the voting machines are delusional?

The Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan company thing??

If "expressing concerns" means "believing that there was a conspiracy through the voting machines that defrauded the US electorate and gave Biden a 6-million vote and 70-point electoral vote victory," then, yes, I consider those "concerns" delusional. Even belief in any part of that statement is delusional.

Trump, for example, has stated that because he lost, the vote of his 73 million persons who voted for him was "stolen." That is either a manipulative lie or straight up delusion. Take your pick. Even state your pick here.

Trump also stated that there was a conspiracy to defraud him because big pharma ran ads against him. What a laughably stupid piece of logic that is. Again, he is either a manipulative liar or he is delusional. Take your pick.

And for anyone else to repeat these pieces of rhetoric is either, as I say, a manipulative liar or delusional person. Believing in them by itself is delusional.

As I think anyone can see, I was trying to be specific about the word "concerned" where you had not been. Some "concerns" are legit (like whether the machine is turned on or actually reading ballots). Some concerns are not and are delusional. And I specified which were which.

I don't know why you are rejecting this as an "answer". And also implying that this is some sort of obfuscation on my part. Godsake.

kazoolaw
November 30th, 2020, 11:18 AM
I answered kazoolaw's question, but he appears to be gone and never answered his own question.

No, actually he didn't. TSherbs likes to change, or evade, a question he won't answer. My question was "So those expressing concerns over, for example, the voting machines are delusional?"

Didn't ask for his opinion, knew that already.

TS knew that to answer the actual question would back him into a corner, so he didn't answer it. Then he told you he did, thinking you wouldn't remember the actual question or wouldn't take the time to check.

And so the question remains....


How is what I wrote, quoted below, not an answer to your question? Why all this nonsense about me "not answering a question" or "being backed into a corner"? What "corner" is that?






I just don’t get that lots of people don’t get it. “Massive election fraud” is the same as “we didn’t land on the moon, it was faked in a Hollywood studio”. How many thousands of individuals would have to synchronize their lies ad infinitum. Without a single one saying it didn’t happen (as in there was no election fraud, and we didn’t fake it in a Hollywood studio). It simply defies all logic. How can any sane person believe in those conspiracy nonsense?

America's ability to delude itself sometimes is astonishing. Our sense of exceptionalism has never been based on "truth" or intelligence. Indeed, we have a very strong anti-intellectual streak in our national ethos.

So those expressing concerns over, for example, the voting machines are delusional?

The Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan company thing??

If "expressing concerns" means "believing that there was a conspiracy through the voting machines that defrauded the US electorate and gave Biden a 6-million vote and 70-point electoral vote victory," then, yes, I consider those "concerns" delusional. Even belief in any part of that statement is delusional.

Trump, for example, has stated that because he lost, the vote of his 73 million persons who voted for him was "stolen." That is either a manipulative lie or straight up delusion. Take your pick. Even state your pick here.

Trump also stated that there was a conspiracy to defraud him because big pharma ran ads against him. What a laughably stupid piece of logic that is. Again, he is either a manipulative liar or he is delusional. Take your pick.

And for anyone else to repeat these pieces of rhetoric is either, as I say, a manipulative liar or delusional person. Believing in them by itself is delusional.

As I think anyone can see, I was trying to be specific about the word "concerned" where you had not been. Some "concerns" are legit (like whether the machine is turned on or actually reading ballots). Some concerns are not and are delusional. And I specified which were which.

I don't know why you are rejecting this as an "answer". And also implying that this is some sort of obfuscation on my part. Godsake.

"I am done with this thread." I knew you weren't, you knew you weren't, everyone knew you weren't. Why would you strike such a pose? To paraphrase Dan Hicks, how can we miss you if you won't go away?

If you answered "Yes" then you will have conceded that reasonable people may have valid concerns regarding the security of voting machines. If you answered "No" then you will have characterized Democrats who expressed concerns regarding the security of voting machines as delusional.

You went far afield , all the way to Venezuela, to respond to a simple "Yes or No" question. Your answer is a fine example of "obfuscation." I glean that you would agree that being concerned about whether the machine is turned on isn't delusional.

Let's try not to change subjects to big pharma, Hugo Chavez, or any other distraction. Can you say that some concerns about the security of voting machines are also not delusional? Better yet, can you point to some concerns regarding the security of voting machines, in the USA, you view as legitimate? In your view, are concerns about the security of voting machines used in the USA all delusional?

TFarnon
November 30th, 2020, 11:27 AM
:::shrug::: I did some back of the envelope math, and what the election numbers tell me are that roughly 20 percent of the US population are absolute idiots. That more or less conforms to the bell curve distribution seen throughout nature, and used in statistical analyses for at least a century. I might not like the fact that our idiot numbers are so high, but it's hardly confined to elections. It's also pretty consistent with opinions on vaccines, opinions on medicine in general, and even science in general. It's pretty consistent with rates of hand-held digital devices while driving. It's consistent with almost any behavior or group being studied. It's consistent with almost any kind of stupidity you might want to consider.

The only question is which political leanings you consider those of the idiots. I won't specifically state my political leanings in this post, but I will say this: I am a scientist. I think anyone with two functioning synapses can deduce my leanings from that.

TSherbs
November 30th, 2020, 12:33 PM
goddddsake!

I said I was done cuz you hadn't replied. Then you did. So I replied to you.

Why are you being so difficult about it? Are you carrying some sort of grudge about something? (I sure don't remember you).

So, your point is that a reply of "yes, sometimes" is an obfuscation? Venezuela is not an obfuscation; it is in the legal papers filed in Georgia, for crying out loud. It's one of the pillars of that 104-page legal document filed with the court.

That "concern" is "delusional," yes. It is unsupported by any evidence. It is speculative, and paranoid.

Why don't you just say what level of error or fraud you believe in, instead of impugning my honesty?

kazoolaw
November 30th, 2020, 01:51 PM
goddddsake!

I said I was done cuz you hadn't replied. Then you did. So I replied to you.

Why are you being so difficult about it? Are you carrying some sort of grudge about something? (I sure don't remember you).

So, your point is that a reply of "yes, sometimes" is an obfuscation? Venezuela is not an obfuscation; it is in the legal papers filed in Georgia, for crying out loud. It's one of the pillars of that 104-page legal document filed with the court.

That "concern" is "delusional," yes. It is unsupported by any evidence. It is speculative, and paranoid.

Why don't you just say what level of error or fraud you believe in, instead of impugning my honesty?
TS-
Why this fascination with Venezuela? And why keep bringing up the Complaints? I haven't.

Again, the questions were simple, and again you've not responded to any of them. I will repeat the last one: "In your view, are concerns about the security of voting machines used in the USA all delusional?"

TSherbs
November 30th, 2020, 02:03 PM
goddddsake!

I said I was done cuz you hadn't replied. Then you did. So I replied to you.

Why are you being so difficult about it? Are you carrying some sort of grudge about something? (I sure don't remember you).

So, your point is that a reply of "yes, sometimes" is an obfuscation? Venezuela is not an obfuscation; it is in the legal papers filed in Georgia, for crying out loud. It's one of the pillars of that 104-page legal document filed with the court.

That "concern" is "delusional," yes. It is unsupported by any evidence. It is speculative, and paranoid.

Why don't you just say what level of error or fraud you believe in, instead of impugning my honesty?
TS-
Why this fascination with Venezuela? And why keep bringing up the Complaints? I haven't.

Again, the questions were simple, and again you've not responded to any of them. I will repeat the last one: "In your view, are concerns about the security of voting machines used in the USA all delusional?"

Well, you have now added the word "all" to your question (see above for the interpolation), which changes everything, right? Which is why you changed it, no doubt.

Of course not "ALL" concerns are delusional, which has been my point from the start. As I noted, from the start, the "concerns" (without the word "all" as you originally asked the question) that are delusional are the ones that lead one to thinking that this election was fraudulent and/or stolen from the incumbent. THAT is a level of "concern" not based in reality, empirical or legal. This is no "fascination" on my part, just a simple reading of the first part of the legal document submitted to the court in Georgia in an attempt to block certification of the vote in Georgia.

So where do you stand on this, kazoolaw? Do you have "concerns" that mean that you question that Biden won this election?

kazoolaw
November 30th, 2020, 02:49 PM
goddddsake!

I said I was done cuz you hadn't replied. Then you did. So I replied to you.

Why are you being so difficult about it? Are you carrying some sort of grudge about something? (I sure don't remember you).

So, your point is that a reply of "yes, sometimes" is an obfuscation? Venezuela is not an obfuscation; it is in the legal papers filed in Georgia, for crying out loud. It's one of the pillars of that 104-page legal document filed with the court.

That "concern" is "delusional," yes. It is unsupported by any evidence. It is speculative, and paranoid.

Why don't you just say what level of error or fraud you believe in, instead of impugning my honesty?
TS-
Why this fascination with Venezuela? And why keep bringing up the Complaints? I haven't.

Again, the questions were simple, and again you've not responded to any of them. I will repeat the last one: "In your view, are concerns about the security of voting machines used in the USA all delusional?"

Well, you have now added the word "all" to your question (see above for the interpolation), which changes everything, right? Which is why you changed it, no doubt.

Of course not "ALL" concerns are delusional, which has been my point from the start. As I noted, from the start, the "concerns" (without the word "all" as you originally asked the question) that are delusional are the ones that lead one to thinking that this election was fraudulent and/or stolen from the incumbent. THAT is a level of "concern" not based in reality, empirical or legal. This is no "fascination" on my part, just a simple reading of the first part of the legal document submitted to the court in Georgia in an attempt to block certification of the vote in Georgia.

So where do you stand on this, kazoolaw? Do you have "concerns" that mean that you question that Biden won this election?

Now we're getting someplace: you agree that one can have legitimate concerns about the security of voting machines.

One strategy of asking questions when you don't get a response to the first question is to keep changing the question until the other person has to respond. I did, and you did. I suppose it would be unfair to expect you to answer another of my earlier questions asking which concerns (other than hitting the "On" switch) you believe are legitimate.

Your partisanship keeps taking you back to the Georgia Complaint: was it that Complaint that you said you only read the first few pages of, or one of the suits? My question has never asked about the affidavits, or other allegations of voting improprieties, in the lawsuits. But, since you brought it up, is your limiting the characterization of being delusional to "the first part of the legal document" a concession that you accept that the remainder of the llegal document is valid?

I do have concerns about election security, which concern crosses party lines. I believe that those concerns are subject to proofs. As all allegations should be.

Empty_of_Clouds
November 30th, 2020, 03:27 PM
Fascinatin' to quote Freddie.

One can raise concerns about anything, without any kind of rationale, reason or evidence. However, as the judge said, "Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so."

I have no legitimate concerns about the voting machines, simply because I see zero evidence to encourage such concerns. This from an overseas observer who is not in the voting population of the US.

So, I think TSHerbs is right to ask what your (Kazoolaw) specific concerns are in this regard, and with regard to the voting machines perhaps you could forward some of your evidence.

TSherbs
November 30th, 2020, 03:50 PM
Fascinatin' to quote Freddie.

One can raise concerns about anything, without any kind of rationale, reason or evidence. However, as the judge said, "Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so."

I have no legitimate concerns about the voting machines, simply because I see zero evidence to encourage such concerns. This from an overseas observer who is not in the voting population of the US.

So, I think TSHerbs is right to ask what your (Kazoolaw) specific concerns are in this regard, and with regard to the voting machines perhaps you could forward some of your evidence.

The dude is tiring. I have been clear, in more than one post, about the difference in degree I see about, say, worrying about a machine here or there that pops a circuit breaker and the conspiracy theories that have been circulating in court documents and that I have been calling delusional.

Maybe he'll answer the question of it comes from you. He seems to have some sort of animus toward me.

dneal
November 30th, 2020, 04:30 PM
Fascinatin' to quote Freddie.

One can raise concerns about anything, without any kind of rationale, reason or evidence. However, as the judge said, "Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so."

I have no legitimate concerns about the voting machines, simply because I see zero evidence to encourage such concerns. This from an overseas observer who is not in the voting population of the US.

So, I think TSHerbs is right to ask what your (Kazoolaw) specific concerns are in this regard, and with regard to the voting machines perhaps you could forward some of your evidence.

Did you watch the 7 minute video? That testimony specifically addresses the machines. He also addresses how the processes he observed destroys the forensic trail.

The "software glitches" switching votes are documented and reported by the media. What I find peculiar is that some vote tallies had decimals. That's impossible without weighting votes, which is a documented feature of the systems in question. That's one of the arguments advanced by those who suspect fraud. I can post a link, but no one is bothering to read or listen so I don't see the point. Instead, we see the claims of "no evidence" regurgitated. Yes, there is evidence. How convincing it is remains debatable, but it's hard to debate it when one side refuses to look at any of it and dismisses its existence.

Chuck Naill
December 1st, 2020, 05:20 AM
This is more of "my man said it and I believe it". We know about confirmation bias, yet we fall into the trap if not careful. Did I believe that Trump didn't beat Clintion or that he did something to sway the voters? I didn't. Even with the Russian trying to influence the election, I didn't think he was not the legitimate winner according to how the US uses the Electorial College. I have asked myself if Biden were challanging the courts to influence the outcome what I would think. I hope I would think the same.

I do think most Americans who voted for Trump had no idea of his past or direct quotes. Anything negative was an unfriendly press or the democrats. Not that they were a primary source, when you have people like McCain challanging Trump, it gives weight to any concern I already had.

Prior to 2015 I had taken the time to consider both the wealth and success of Trump. What I discovered didn't support to me that he was successful in business, but that he was successful in litigation and cheating. One only needs to consider his casino in Atlantic City as a good example.

welch
December 1st, 2020, 06:33 AM
dneal asks:


Did you watch the 7 minute video? That testimony specifically addresses the machines. He also addresses how the processes he observed destroys the forensic trail.

The "software glitches" switching votes are documented and reported by the media. What I find peculiar is that some vote tallies had decimals. That's impossible without weighting votes, which is a documented feature of the systems in question. That's one of the arguments advanced by those who suspect fraud. I can post a link, but no one is bothering to read or listen so I don't see the point. Instead, we see the claims of "no evidence" regurgitated. Yes, there is evidence. How convincing it is remains debatable, but it's hard to debate it when one side refuses to look at any of it and dismisses its existence.

The guy claims to have scene procedural errors in the vote-counting process in Delaware County, PA. He was not under oath and not faced with cross-examination. He begins smoothly, telling us over and over that he is some sort of "forensic cyber security" specialist. He repeats that he was a sailor and he was accompanied by some retired Marines. And that's all.

His entire testimony is that he met a few people who arrived with voting problems, and that there were period of time "when the chain of custody" of ballots was "broken". Like some TV cop show. He complains that the county released new counts every four hours, rather than maybe, minute by minute. So what?

From that, he extrapolates thousands and hundreds of thousands of Biden votes slipped through a back door.

In spite of this guy's emotional claim that "Democrat" officials had dumped in so many votes in the heavily Democratic county that the results were pretty much what pollsters expected, and in spite of Republican lawyers' filing lawsuit after lawsuit -- and losing -- this forensic guy was never presented in court. Never swore to tell the truth in court, where he could be jailed for lying. That is significant, since Giuliani and Powell were claiming -- outside court -- to have found evidence that Hugo Chavez conspired with Fidel Castro in Red Heaven to spread fraud in every election in the world. But Republican lawyers, as they threw every scrap of spaghetti against the courtroom wall, chose not to bring this guy to court.

Giuliani admitted to a judge that his "elite strike team" would not accuse anyone of having committed fraud. Their feeble evidence was reviewed and dismissed; their legal arguments were crushed in the unanimous opinion linked to, and read by, dneal above.

Detman101
December 1st, 2020, 06:34 AM
The point is, though, that after Jan 20th he will no longer be president and will not have that authority. So I guess that means he cannot pardon himself for anything he gets taken to court for after that date? Asking for a friend. :)Hell yeah...they will be waiting for him with handcuffs. Or maybe his debtors will send out a "collection squad" ala "training day" and relieve the country of having to feed this scumstain in jail.

Sent from my LG-M210 using Tapatalk

Detman101
December 1st, 2020, 06:37 AM
So a question for those who find him so objectionable. Specifically, what (other than his bombast) do you think makes him a bad President?

I don't find him so objectionable per se, but I do think that irrespective of his actual performance in the office, his incessant tweeting and attention-seeking behaviour, public outbursts, ill-founded pronouncements (e.g. on COVID-19), antagonising China with snide unofficial names for the disease, his unorthodox hiring and firing practices for White House staff and key Government officials, and so on all make the USA look like a sad joke on the world stage — more so now than ever — even if his domestic politics are not a total write-off (which is something I'm not in a position to judge).

I think that makes him a bad President of the United States, beside seemingly a particularly divisive one (from an external observer's point of view) in how he deals with the constituent States and the American people at large.Perfectly stated!

Sent from my LG-M210 using Tapatalk

kazoolaw
December 1st, 2020, 06:38 AM
One can raise concerns about anything, without any kind of rationale, reason or evidence. However, as the judge said, "Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so."

I have no legitimate concerns about the voting machines, simply because I see zero evidence to encourage such concerns. This from an overseas observer who is not in the voting population of the US.



Calling an election unfair does not make it so. Which is why I said concerns are subject to proof. What causes me some concern?

https://www.sos.texas.gov/elections/forms/sysexam/dominion-d-suite-5.5-a.pdf

https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/cisa-election-infrastructure-cyber-risk-assessment_508.pdf

Curious though, what are your illegitimate concerns?

Detman101
December 1st, 2020, 06:47 AM
In both cases, they are superficial arguments.

You're deflecting from the actual point.

Let me reiterate: the actual point, in answer to your question, is that I think Donald Trump is a bad President because he makes the USA look like a sad joke to the rest of the world. Maybe Obama, Clinton and Bush all did too; if so, you could say they were therefore bad Presidents too, as if that has any relevance to the question you asked. It doesn't make Trump any better as the Head of State.

You asked for others' thoughts. I gave you mine. You don't need to convince me that Trump isn't so bad; I'm not a US citizen and not a voter. I'm not arguing that he's a bad President and hope to convince you; I just think what I think.

*sigh*

I didn't ask to be convinced if Trump was a bad President, and I'm not trying to convince anyone he's not. I'm simply asking for reasons beyond the superficial. You're merely demonstrating my point about simplistic hyperbole, and keep reiterating variations of "Orange man bad..."

There are plenty of more relevant points that can be made, even if you're not a citizen. American international relations or actions (other than "hur dur, he's a joke"), can be made. Trump's policy on pulling out of Afghanistan. His policy of pulling out of Syria. His effort to get NATO countries to spend 2% of their GDP in accordance with the treaty. His pulling out of the Paris climate accord. There are plenty of policies that could be addressed. You choose not to.Sorry, he's never got to be admired for the "broken clock" method. He may have been right twice, but he's been a complete F-UP the entire test of the time.

And also before he was placed into the president's seat. He was an Asshole his entire life and NYers will NEVER forget that.
He's has a reckoning coming for decades and I, for one, hope to see him pay for his misdeeds even if it's JUST for what he did before ruining the office of the President and making a mockery of this country.

Sent from my LG-M210 using Tapatalk

Detman101
December 1st, 2020, 06:52 AM
Trump has been saying racist nonsense for decades.
He lost a lawsuit over race in his hotels (I can't now remember if it was staff of clients).
He lied repeatedly about the Central Park Five.
He was the champion of the Obama racist birther lies.
Trump is exactly what a racist white is. Personally. In the flesh. A racist white in positions of power to say and do things with prejudice and damage and ill will.Thank you.
That's precisely it. He's been a complete racist jackhole for decades.


Sent from my LG-M210 using Tapatalk

TSherbs
December 1st, 2020, 07:45 AM
One can raise concerns about anything, without any kind of rationale, reason or evidence. However, as the judge said, "Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so."

I have no legitimate concerns about the voting machines, simply because I see zero evidence to encourage such concerns. This from an overseas observer who is not in the voting population of the US.



Calling an election unfair does not make it so. Which is why I said concerns are subject to proof. What causes me some concern?

https://www.sos.texas.gov/elections/forms/sysexam/dominion-d-suite-5.5-a.pdf



https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/cisa-election-infrastructure-cyber-risk-assessment_508.pdf

Curious though, what are your illegitimate concerns?

Neither of these documents is evidence of failures or inaccuracies or fraud in the 2020 election. Indeed, the head of CISA (your second document), tells us that the 2020 was the most secure election yet.

No one expects the vote tally to be perfect. Both machines and people make errors. That Texas did not use the same machine ware as other states does not mean that fraud or conspiracy had occurred. The delusion is when these minor inaccuracies get amplified and turned into vast conspiracy theories of stolen or fraudulent elections. That is the illusion, that is the lie. Obviously, every precinct is "concerned" about the accuracy of their tallying processes and works hard through that "concern" to be thorough and responsible and lawful. God bless those workers! They are the true guardians of this election! It helps, too, that every recount and quality control check has reproduced with great accuracy, the original count.

But these subsequent "concerns" about the legitimacy of a state's certification (other than the issue of a margin of, say, less than 1000 votes) is, in my opinion, total political bullshit, driven either by conspiracy delusion or the expedience of lying.

dneal
December 1st, 2020, 08:20 AM
Many of you are conflating "evidence" with "proof". There is evidence. Whether or not it's proof remains to be seen.

Ray-VIgo
December 1st, 2020, 09:47 AM
I think the ultimate result is that the lawsuits will have no more than a delaying action, at most. Ultimately Biden will be elected, and inaugurated. I suppose the goal for those so doing was an attempt to restore some semblance of a "mainstream" left politics from the Obama era, or at least the appearance of it. But 2020 is not 2008 or 2012. The left and the right in the U.S. are divided and of roughly equal strength. The left is more adept at street actions, while the right is better armed. The notion of a "blue wave" was the product of arrogance, and the notion that Trump would crush Biden was the product of denial. I foresee no reconciliation, and neither side is sincere about wanting such. I have this innate feeling that the Rubicon has been crossed in terms of national division and that we are entering a period of where there will be spasms of civil unrest and violence. Ten years ago this would have sounded like lunacy, but with each side saying that this is "the end" of America if the other wins, it's not so far-fetched.

kazoolaw
December 1st, 2020, 09:51 AM
One can raise concerns about anything, without any kind of rationale, reason or evidence. However, as the judge said, "Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so."

I have no legitimate concerns about the voting machines, simply because I see zero evidence to encourage such concerns. This from an overseas observer who is not in the voting population of the US.



Calling an election unfair does not make it so. Which is why I said concerns are subject to proof. What causes me some concern?

https://www.sos.texas.gov/elections/forms/sysexam/dominion-d-suite-5.5-a.pdf



https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/cisa-election-infrastructure-cyber-risk-assessment_508.pdf

Curious though, what are your illegitimate concerns?

Neither of these documents is evidence of failures or inaccuracies or fraud in the 2020 election. Indeed, the head of CISA (your second document), tells us that the 2020 was the most secure election yet.

No one expects the vote tally to be perfect. Both machines and people make errors. That Texas did not use the same machine ware as other states does not mean that fraud or conspiracy had occurred. The delusion is when these minor inaccuracies get amplified and turned into vast conspiracy theories of stolen or fraudulent elections. That is the illusion, that is the lie. Obviously, every precinct is "concerned" about the accuracy of their tallying processes and works hard through that "concern" to be thorough and responsible and lawful. God bless those workers! They are the true guardians of this election! It helps, too, that every recount and quality control check has reproduced with great accuracy, the original count.

But these subsequent "concerns" about the legitimacy of a state's certification (other than the issue of a margin of, say, less than 1000 votes) is, in my opinion, total political bullshit, driven either by conspiracy delusion or the expedience of lying.

TS- It's difficult to determine whether you don't understand the hierarchy of concerns, allegations, evidence and proof, or you just don't care because it would make you question your opinions. Each is equally plausible based upon your testimony.

By the way, you're wrong when you said "It helps, too, that every recount and quality control check has reproduced with great accuracy, the original count." Antrim County Michigan was reported as going to Biden. A recount found that the county actually went for Trump.

Pesky things those facts.

TSherbs
December 1st, 2020, 10:10 AM
@kazoolaw
Thanks, but counties don't choose electors. I meant state recounts. Recounts don't reproduce *exact* results. They don't have to. This only matters at the state level, which is what is being alleged by the deluded and the liars. Which is also why I said <1000 vote margin (and rarely do state recounts differ by more than this. )

And we have been talking about the presidential election, not the local school board (or whatever). You seem to be suggesting that if a "concern" is valid in some small corner, then it is also valid in the largest arena even with margins of victory in the tens of thousands. I'll, repeat, I don't share that concern or that logic. The latter concern I call a delusion or a lie (in this election with these results and with the current dearth of any evidence presented to the contrary).

You can keep saying that I am changing the point if you want, but then that would be false too. I keep making the same point every time and you keep trying to question my sincerity and honesty.

Empty_of_Clouds
December 1st, 2020, 10:59 AM
One can raise concerns about anything, without any kind of rationale, reason or evidence. However, as the judge said, "Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so."

I have no legitimate concerns about the voting machines, simply because I see zero evidence to encourage such concerns. This from an overseas observer who is not in the voting population of the US.



Calling an election unfair does not make it so. Which is why I said concerns are subject to proof. What causes me some concern?

https://www.sos.texas.gov/elections/forms/sysexam/dominion-d-suite-5.5-a.pdf

https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/cisa-election-infrastructure-cyber-risk-assessment_508.pdf

Curious though, what are your illegitimate concerns?


If I had any legitimate concerns, as an outside observer, about the use of the voting machines and software, those documents would have put those concerns to rest.

kazoolaw
December 1st, 2020, 12:02 PM
@kazoolaw
Thanks, but counties don't choose electors. I meant state recounts. Recounts don't reproduce *exact* results. They don't have to. This only matters at the state level, which is what is being alleged by the deluded and the liars. Which is also why I said <1000 vote margin (and rarely do state recounts differ by more than this. )

And we have been talking about the presidential election, not the local school board (or whatever). You seem to be suggesting that if a "concern" is valid in some small corner, then it is also valid in the largest arena even with margins of victory in the tens of thousands. I'll, repeat, I don't share that concern or that logic. The latter concern I call a delusion or a lie (in this election with these results and with the current dearth of any evidence presented to the contrary).

You can keep saying that I am changing the point if you want, but then that would be false too. I keep making the same point every time and you keep trying to question my sincerity and honesty.

TS-
You said no recount ever overturned the original count. And we were talking about the presidential election. Demonstrated you were wrong. Then it's "Oops, didn't mean what I actually said." Just changing the point. Again.

Facts remain pesky things, and apparently somewhat foreign to you.

If you can't say what you mean, or mean what you say, there is no meaningful discussion to be had.

TSherbs
December 1st, 2020, 12:27 PM
dear lord

Time to move on.

dneal
December 1st, 2020, 01:25 PM
In both cases, they are superficial arguments.

You're deflecting from the actual point.

Let me reiterate: the actual point, in answer to your question, is that I think Donald Trump is a bad President because he makes the USA look like a sad joke to the rest of the world. Maybe Obama, Clinton and Bush all did too; if so, you could say they were therefore bad Presidents too, as if that has any relevance to the question you asked. It doesn't make Trump any better as the Head of State.

You asked for others' thoughts. I gave you mine. You don't need to convince me that Trump isn't so bad; I'm not a US citizen and not a voter. I'm not arguing that he's a bad President and hope to convince you; I just think what I think.

*sigh*

I didn't ask to be convinced if Trump was a bad President, and I'm not trying to convince anyone he's not. I'm simply asking for reasons beyond the superficial. You're merely demonstrating my point about simplistic hyperbole, and keep reiterating variations of "Orange man bad..."

There are plenty of more relevant points that can be made, even if you're not a citizen. American international relations or actions (other than "hur dur, he's a joke"), can be made. Trump's policy on pulling out of Afghanistan. His policy of pulling out of Syria. His effort to get NATO countries to spend 2% of their GDP in accordance with the treaty. His pulling out of the Paris climate accord. There are plenty of policies that could be addressed. You choose not to.Sorry, he's never got to be admired for the "broken clock" method. He may have been right twice, but he's been a complete F-UP the entire test of the time.

And also before he was placed into the president's seat. He was an Asshole his entire life and NYers will NEVER forget that.
He's has a reckoning coming for decades and I, for one, hope to see him pay for his misdeeds even if it's JUST for what he did before ruining the office of the President and making a mockery of this country.

Sent from my LG-M210 using Tapatalk

And that concludes today’s two minutes of hate.

Tune in tomorrow to a telescreen near you.

ethernautrix
December 1st, 2020, 02:38 PM
Barr: DOJ yet to find widespread voter fraud that could have changed 2020 election

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/william-barr-doj-fbi-voter-fraud-2020-election

“To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election," Barr told The Associated Press.

And

"There's been one assertion that would be systemic fraud and that would be the claim that machines were programmed essentially to skew the election results,” Barr told the AP. “And the DHS and DOJ have looked into that, and so far, we haven't seen anything to substantiate that.”


I'm quoting Fox News, instead of the BBC where I read it first.

Chuck Naill
December 1st, 2020, 03:20 PM
Barr: DOJ yet to find widespread voter fraud that could have changed 2020 election

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/william-barr-doj-fbi-voter-fraud-2020-election

“To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election," Barr told The Associated Press.

And

"There's been one assertion that would be systemic fraud and that would be the claim that machines were programmed essentially to skew the election results,” Barr told the AP. “And the DHS and DOJ have looked into that, and so far, we haven't seen anything to substantiate that.”


I'm quoting Fox News, instead of the BBC where I read it first.

Yes, I got notice from the NYT. That said, I was not aware the DOJ had actually launched an investigation, but not that they would tell me if they were.....LOL!!

Barr and McConnell appear to be moving on. :)

dneal
December 1st, 2020, 03:22 PM
Barr: DOJ yet to find widespread voter fraud that could have changed 2020 election

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/william-barr-doj-fbi-voter-fraud-2020-election

“To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election," Barr told The Associated Press.

And

"There's been one assertion that would be systemic fraud and that would be the claim that machines were programmed essentially to skew the election results,” Barr told the AP. “And the DHS and DOJ have looked into that, and so far, we haven't seen anything to substantiate that.”


I'm quoting Fox News, instead of the BBC where I read it first.

In an effort to be "Fair and Balanced", here's an MSN article (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-freezes-voting-machines-in-three-georgia-counties/ar-BB1bujEu?fbclid=IwAR2litk27XVm6phGFkKGpW45b2E5Ex2r 3SlfzduW8XM0SIvPlz2sxjPb5_o) where a Georgia judge ordered that voting servers in three counties not be wiped, tampered with, etc... So perhaps we'll see.

What's odd (well, maybe not) is that these complaints are nothing new.

Here are a few articles from the AP about previous alleged problems with voting machines in Georgia. Note that in the first, the FBI "got involved", which turns out to be they received and stored a hard drive image without looking into the issue any further.

Expert: Georgia election server showed signs of tampering (https://apnews.com/article/39dad9d39a7533efe06e0774615a6d05)
APNewsBreak: Georgia election server wiped after suit filed (https://apnews.com/article/877ee1015f1c43f1965f63538b035d3f)
Judge blasts Georgia officials’ handling of election system (https://apnews.com/article/3bb82cd078444a42b9aad64faadc802b)


HBO aired a documentary called "Hacking Democracy", about the potential for fraud with electronic voting machines. It was nominated for an Emmy, and was all the rage when there were accusations of Russian interference. The site for the documentary is: http://www.hackingdemocracy.com/

The lady the documentary originated from has her own site: https://blackboxvoting.org/

Are they conspiracy theorists? Maybe. It's been an issue since 2003 though. None of the articles on the second site have anything to do with the 2020 election.

Setting aside 2020 for a moment, it seems rational to implement controls on systems to assure the public and prevent these sort of accusations; whether it's Stacy Abrams or Donald Trump. The black box voting site explains several options, from "The Brakey Method" to ballot imaging.

Here are Salon.com's (https://www.salon.com/2006/11/02/hacking/) and HuffPost's (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ten-years-after-hbos-hacking-democracy-electoral_b_584f8d14e4b0016e5043070b?timestamp=148 1683802425&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5oYWNraW5nZGVtb2NyYWN5 LmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAEXHU850WJd-Zndlu2lupIc1qQLnQs4DchhLjniUkXwK4mDsLIl6-7UFpudNcpiRpn4CVe2xWSg64a0Kuox2HgRhegSMs26aZU6wUHC 4PoGcKjVfzFBEI80kTbqpXqbWptkrr_S5MKyq8haSNGOeyuUNA mMLtmNmDan3yoHAXS_Z) reviews of the documentary, and arguments of relevance which I think are still valid today. Those two outlets are hardly bastions of conservatism. Perhaps this might finally persuade EoC that there is a very small reason to have an inkling of concern with electronic systems. I dunno... ;)

Freddie
December 1st, 2020, 06:16 PM
Barr: DOJ yet to find widespread voter fraud that could have changed 2020 election

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/william-barr-doj-fbi-voter-fraud-2020-election

“To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election," Barr told The Associated Press.

And

"There's been one assertion that would be systemic fraud and that would be the claim that machines were programmed essentially to skew the election results,” Barr told the AP. “And the DHS and DOJ have looked into that, and so far, we haven't seen anything to substantiate that.”


I'm quoting Fox News, instead of the BBC where I read it first.

In an effort to be "Fair and Balanced", here's an MSN article (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-freezes-voting-machines-in-three-georgia-counties/ar-BB1bujEu?fbclid=IwAR2litk27XVm6phGFkKGpW45b2E5Ex2r 3SlfzduW8XM0SIvPlz2sxjPb5_o) where a Georgia judge ordered that voting servers in three counties not be wiped, tampered with, etc... So perhaps we'll see.

What's odd (well, maybe not) is that these complaints are nothing new.

Here are a few articles from the AP about previous alleged problems with voting machines in Georgia. Note that in the first, the FBI "got involved", which turns out to be they received and stored a hard drive image without looking into the issue any further.

Expert: Georgia election server showed signs of tampering (https://apnews.com/article/39dad9d39a7533efe06e0774615a6d05)
APNewsBreak: Georgia election server wiped after suit filed (https://apnews.com/article/877ee1015f1c43f1965f63538b035d3f)
Judge blasts Georgia officials’ handling of election system (https://apnews.com/article/3bb82cd078444a42b9aad64faadc802b)


HBO aired a documentary called "Hacking Democracy", about the potential for fraud with electronic voting machines. It was nominated for an Emmy, and was all the rage when there were accusations of Russian interference. The site for the documentary is: http://www.hackingdemocracy.com/

The lady the documentary originated from has her own site: https://blackboxvoting.org/

Are they conspiracy theorists? Maybe. It's been an issue since 2003 though. None of the articles on the second site have anything to do with the 2020 election.

Setting aside 2020 for a moment, it seems rational to implement controls on systems to assure the public and prevent these sort of accusations; whether it's Stacy Abrams or Donald Trump. The black box voting site explains several options, from "The Brakey Method" to ballot imaging.

Here are Salon.com's (https://www.salon.com/2006/11/02/hacking/) and HuffPost's (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ten-years-after-hbos-hacking-democracy-electoral_b_584f8d14e4b0016e5043070b?timestamp=148 1683802425&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5oYWNraW5nZGVtb2NyYWN5 LmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAEXHU850WJd-Zndlu2lupIc1qQLnQs4DchhLjniUkXwK4mDsLIl6-7UFpudNcpiRpn4CVe2xWSg64a0Kuox2HgRhegSMs26aZU6wUHC 4PoGcKjVfzFBEI80kTbqpXqbWptkrr_S5MKyq8haSNGOeyuUNA mMLtmNmDan3yoHAXS_Z) reviews of the documentary, and arguments of relevance which I think are still valid today. Those two outlets are hardly bastions of conservatism. Perhaps this might finally persuade EoC that there is a very small reason to have an inkling of concern with electronic systems. I dunno... ;)

@ethernautrix Hear hear


The National Review ...good read...........

More BS from above....Excuses are like assholes Everybody got one [Dude in the movie]

Well gotta go..Some chow and glass of Overture by Opus One.....

And The Beat Goes On

Fred

dneal
December 1st, 2020, 06:49 PM
The National Review ...good read...........

More BS from above....Excuses are like assholes Everybody got one [Dude in the movie]

Well gotta go..Some chow and glass of Overture by Opus One.....

And The Beat Goes On

Fred

Fascinatin'

2018, from that neo-con conservative rag The New York Times

The Crisis of Election Security
As the midterms approach, America’s electronic voting systems are more vulnerable than ever. Why isn’t anyone trying to fix them? (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/magazine/election-security-crisis-midterms.html)

Freddie
December 1st, 2020, 09:01 PM
[QUOTE=Freddie;310115]
@ethernautrix


The National Review ...good read...........

More BS from above....Excuses are like assholes Everybody got one [Dude in the movie]

Well gotta go..Some chow and glass of Overture by Opus One.....

And The Beat Goes On

Fred

Fascinatin'

2018, from that neo-con conservative rag The New York Times

Fascinatin...ain't it......Certainly Whoop Whoop Whoop Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk

Sure is Pal........and The Beat Goes On whilst the Grifter robs those suckers....

Still your friend and his..

Fred
Say Good Night Gracie

ethernautrix
December 2nd, 2020, 03:24 AM
Quick question: How many people attended Trump's inauguration?

I recall "biggest" (or maybe it was "bigger than Obama's") contradicted by reporting. Hmm... What (whom) to believe...? What was the reality?

Or was the point to force onlookers to question ceaselessly what was obvious, even if the numbers were not exact?

ethernautrix
December 2nd, 2020, 03:44 AM
One saying looping around in the back of my brain (been there for decades) is, If you repeat it enough, it becomes true. (No, it doesn't, but try explaining that to people who believe.)

I'm not saying election fraud absolutely did happen or did not happen. Some recounts gave Biden an even wider margin (albeit slim, or not). Some gave Trump more votes -- but certainly not enough to swing the election.


What about the other election results? Are they all called into question? If you throw out all the votes, who else loses or wins a Congressional seat?




Here's an interesting read from a game designer about apophenia and manipulation.

https://medium.com/curiouserinstitute/a-game-designers-analysis-of-qanon-580972548be5

Chuck Naill
December 2nd, 2020, 04:26 AM
Again, if you hear what you want to think is true, your're more likely to believe it is, indeed, true. Education is supposed to root out this human tendancy out, but it is not always successful.

Some said four years ago they had to hold their nose to vote for Trump. Having to hold your nose should be a wake up call because I think most of us know the difference between right and wrong. Even a casual understanding of Trump's history and direct quotes should give any reasonable voter pause. Being immoral, Trump is not concerned about right and wrong. He simply lives to gratify himself. What if each of us lived our lives this way?

dneal
December 2nd, 2020, 05:16 AM
@ ethernautrix - To your first post, I quit paying attention to Trump's exaggerations and hyperbole, and the media's discounting or "fact checking" them a long time ago. The inauguration, the rallies, the "mocking a reporter", whatever. There's no doubt Trump exaggerates, and there's no doubt the media tries to prove him wrong (and they've been caught lying about it too). It's juvenile and petty on both ends, and really doesn't matter one way or another. It doesn't affect the economy. It doesn't affect troops in Afghanistan. It doesn't affect the speed with which the COVID vaccine is developed. It does affect the polarization of the country - in a bad way. They're all fucking guilty of inciting this shit though. Dems, Repubs, Leftie news, Righty news, Q Anon conspiracy theorists, Russian Collusion conspiracy theorists, Proud Boys, Antifa malcontents, all of them.

To the second - I have no doubt that petty fraud happened all all levels of this election. I'm sure somebody stuffed a few ballots for the local dogcatcher. That kind of thing happens regularly, and there's plenty of criminal convictions to establish the fact. I am not convinced that Trump got robbed, or that there's some grand conspiracy. I am convinced that there's enough evidence to look into it, if for no other reason than to shut up 70 some odd million voters on either side. HERE's a good, objective explanation of the legal argument (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-Aa3D7tIFQ), although no one will watch it.

That's a good question on what happens, and the main reason I'm really interested in this election. The video I linked talks about the relief requested in the Georgia and Michigan suits. I think the strategy is (that Alan Dershowitz has noted): get enough states' electors out of the electoral math. If neither candidate gets 270 electoral votes, then the election goes to the House. Trump presumably wins, since each state gets one vote. The Senate does the same for VP. Congressional seats wouldn't get altered in that case.

RE: Q Anon. I have a couple of FB friends that eat that shit up. It's like some digital Nostradamus with obscure quatrains on 4-Chan, which then requires too much interpretation. What's weird is their predictions never come true, but they eat the next one up anyway. As an admitted fan of good conspiracy theories, Q Anon isn't one. They're not correct enough to create the illusion of believability. For me, it's on par with the "Mysterious Monolith" in Utah.

The left has their fair share too, they claimed (and still claim) Russian Collusion, to include crazy statements like "Trump paid prostitutes to pee on him". Hyperbole from Adam Schiff was never "fact checked" except in the right-wing media. The Steele Dossier fell apart. A FBI lawyer was found to have altered documents to get more warrants and continue the investigation. There is documented evidence of actual collusion to undermine Trump's presidency, and Durham just got appointed as Special Counsel to continue the investigation into the next administration - whoever that ends up being.

The medium article focuses on Q Anon, but the principles apply to both sides and the article could have been written on a lot of topics, like the myth of police overwhelmingly killing black people. The data shows that to be wrong, but BLM and such continue to "mostly peacefully protest".

The landscape is so hyper-partisan, the misinformation so prevalent and the faux outrage so extreme that discussion is near impossible (as this thread demonstrates).

dneal
December 2nd, 2020, 05:19 AM
Again, if you hear what you want to think is true, your're more likely to believe it is, indeed, true. Education is supposed to root out this human tendancy out, but it is not always successful.

Some said four years ago they had to hold their nose to vote for Trump. Having to hold your nose should be a wake up call because I think most of us know the difference between right and wrong. Even a casual understanding of Trump's history and direct quotes should give any reasonable voter pause. Being immoral, Trump is not concerned about right and wrong. He simply lives to gratify himself. What if each of us lived our lives this way?

The question that should be asked is: what's wrong with our system that so many people found "holding their nose" and voting for Trump the lesser evil? How immoral would the other candidate be perceived to be? That's telling in itself.

dneal
December 2nd, 2020, 07:41 AM
[QUOTE=Freddie;310115]
@ethernautrix


The National Review ...good read...........

More BS from above....Excuses are like assholes Everybody got one [Dude in the movie]

Well gotta go..Some chow and glass of Overture by Opus One.....

And The Beat Goes On

Fred

Fascinatin'

2018, from that neo-con conservative rag The New York Times

Fascinatin...ain't it......Certainly Whoop Whoop Whoop Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk

Sure is Pal........and The Beat Goes On whilst the Grifter robs those suckers....

Still your friend and his..

Fred
Say Good Night Gracie


You consistently mistake (or misrepresent) the point. This isn't about whether or not some mass fraud event happened to Trump. It's about whether or not it could happen - to any candidate red or blue - and how we avoid that.

The problems with electronic voting machines has been pointed out by both sides, for almost 20 years. It has come to a head this year. We need to be able to assure the country in this and future elections if we're going to keep using these sorts of systems.

If you're not going to bother to look into it, and I'm fuggin' spoonfeeding the information at this point; at least stop with the "BS" / "Beat goes on" bullshit responses. It just exemplifies and exacerbates the divisiveness.

kazoolaw
December 2nd, 2020, 07:47 AM
Yup, anyone claiming a presidential election was stolen is a delusional conspiracy theorist.

https://tinyurl.com/y67kxwtq

TSherbs
December 2nd, 2020, 09:49 AM
One saying looping around in the back of my brain (been there for decades) is, If you repeat it enough, it becomes true. (No, it doesn't, but try explaining that to people who believe.)...

I'm teaching Orwell's 1984 in my class right now...

Freddie
December 2nd, 2020, 09:52 AM
[QUOTE=Freddie;310115]
@ethernautrix


The National Review ...good read...........

More BS from above....Excuses are like assholes Everybody got one [Dude in the movie]

Well gotta go..Some chow and glass of Overture by Opus One.....

And The Beat Goes On

Fred

Fascinatin'

2018, from that neo-con conservative rag The New York Times

Fascinatin...ain't it......Certainly Whoop Whoop Whoop Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk

Sure is Pal........and The Beat Goes On whilst the Grifter robs those suckers....

Still your friend and his..

Fred
Say Good Night Gracie


You consistently mistake (or misrepresent) the point. This isn't about whether or not some mass fraud event happened to Trump. It's about whether or not it could happen - to any candidate red or blue - and how we avoid that.

The problems with electronic voting machines has been pointed out by both sides, for almost 20 years. It has come to a head this year. We need to be able to assure the country in this and future elections if we're going to keep using these sorts of systems.

If you're not going to bother to look into it, and I'm fuggin' spoonfeeding the information at this point; at least stop with the "BS" / "Beat goes on" bullshit responses. It just exemplifies and exacerbates the divisiveness.

[B]More BS...Perhaps you look into {again} Covid-19....The Mike Foxtrot has helped kill so far 271K fellow Americans with 13.8 M cases of..........

And {pause} The beat Goes On.....

Now back to me black coffee and I'm gonna hit the road on me R-69S.......................

Still your friend and mine..Have a great day.............

Fred/B]

ethernautrix
December 2nd, 2020, 09:59 AM
Not-Dave,

Out of curiosity (I've saved the video to watch later, cos just returned from a 14.5km walk in 0°C and am still thawing, as it were), what is a good conspiracy theory in your opinion?


(Side note: I used to enjoy the various late-night TV shows, but couldn't stomach all the cheap shots at the Donald. Just too easy and divisive and...ugh. And I have never liked Trump. As President, he is a loose cannon, and while that might be entertaining for some, it is just ugly and damaging. I wish I could ignore his "antics," but I would have to give up the Internet.... I hate all the knee-jerk jabs, although if a joke is actually funny, I'll cop to gaffawing out loud. That stance isn't out of respect for Trump but a disappointment in his detractors for...being shallow and getting back pats from friends. It's embarrassing. I tend to skip most mainstream news cos of paywalls and echo-chamber bait, but...okay, lemme get out of these parentheses.)

What news sources do you trust?

ethernautrix
December 2nd, 2020, 10:03 AM
Yup, anyone claiming a presidential election was stolen is a delusional conspiracy theorist.

https://tinyurl.com/y67kxwtq

Didn't check the link, but question: Who is making that claim?

(I'm sure the answer is in this thread, but trying to find it on this little screen... It's easier for me to ask.)

TSherbs
December 2nd, 2020, 12:00 PM
Not-Dave,

....

What news sources do you trust?

I'm a not-Dave....

I trust (not absolutely, of course) BBC, PBS, AP, REUTERS.

dneal
December 2nd, 2020, 12:42 PM
One saying looping around in the back of my brain (been there for decades) is, If you repeat it enough, it becomes true. (No, it doesn't, but try explaining that to people who believe.)...

I'm teaching Orwell's 1984 in my class right now...

Pay attention to the parts about BLACKWHITE and DOUBLETHINK.

dneal
December 2nd, 2020, 12:46 PM
[QUOTE=Freddie;310115]
@ethernautrix


The National Review ...good read...........

More BS from above....Excuses are like assholes Everybody got one [Dude in the movie]

Well gotta go..Some chow and glass of Overture by Opus One.....

And The Beat Goes On

Fred

Fascinatin'

2018, from that neo-con conservative rag The New York Times

Fascinatin...ain't it......Certainly Whoop Whoop Whoop Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk

Sure is Pal........and The Beat Goes On whilst the Grifter robs those suckers....

Still your friend and his..

Fred
Say Good Night Gracie


You consistently mistake (or misrepresent) the point. This isn't about whether or not some mass fraud event happened to Trump. It's about whether or not it could happen - to any candidate red or blue - and how we avoid that.

The problems with electronic voting machines has been pointed out by both sides, for almost 20 years. It has come to a head this year. We need to be able to assure the country in this and future elections if we're going to keep using these sorts of systems.

If you're not going to bother to look into it, and I'm fuggin' spoonfeeding the information at this point; at least stop with the "BS" / "Beat goes on" bullshit responses. It just exemplifies and exacerbates the divisiveness.

More BS...Perhaps you look into {again} Covid-19....[B]The Mike Foxtrot has helped kill so far 271K fellow Americans with 13.8 M cases of..........

And {pause} The beat Goes On.....

Now back to me black coffee and I'm gonna hit the road on me R-69S.......................

Still your friend and mine..Have a great day.............

Fred/B]

Easy to blame, but where’s your evidence? Do we need to wait until a judge reviews it? All I’m hearing is sounds from the echo chamber... Fascinatin’

dneal
December 2nd, 2020, 01:14 PM
Not-Dave,

Out of curiosity (I've saved the video to watch later, cos just returned from a 14.5km walk in 0°C and am still thawing, as it were), what is a good conspiracy theory in your opinion?


(Side note: I used to enjoy the various late-night TV shows, but couldn't stomach all the cheap shots at the Donald. Just too easy and divisive and...ugh. And I have never liked Trump. As President, he is a loose cannon, and while that might be entertaining for some, it is just ugly and damaging. I wish I could ignore his "antics," but I would have to give up the Internet.... I hate all the knee-jerk jabs, although if a joke is actually funny, I'll cop to gaffawing out loud. That stance isn't out of respect for Trump but a disappointment in his detractors for...being shallow and getting back pats from friends. It's embarrassing. I tend to skip most mainstream news cos of paywalls and echo-chamber bait, but...okay, lemme get out of these parentheses.)

What news sources do you trust?

That's the challenge. Right now, basically none for any topic that could be remotely partisan. I get a summary from a site called The Factual in my email every morning, and start there for what the stories are for the day. If something interests me, I look for biased language (I can give you a lot of examples if you want). Essentially no publication keeps the opinion out of the straight news, and a lot of purely opinion pieces get passed off as news. If I think it's biased one way or another, I look for the story on the other side. I've been joking lately that except for gender and political bent, Tucker Carlson is just like Rachel Maddow. Listen to each of them condescendingly spew their opinions, and you might be able to discern some of the truth. It's why I now read SC opinions instead of letting the news tell me what happened.

Basically I compare across the larger outlets. Washington Post / Washington Times. New York Times / New York Post. CNN / Fox. MSNBC / Newsmax. Most of the magazines are a waste of time at this point. Salon and The Atlantic lean as left as National Review and The Christian Science Monitor do right.

Lately I've been listening to podcasts while I play around on the tractor. Bret Weinstein's "Dark Horse Podcast" is pretty fair and cover a lot of contemporary topics. They admit they're liberal Democrats up front, but are pretty good about discussing both sides of an issue. They're critical of the progressive left as well as the far right, which sometimes gets them labeled as apologists, and they're definitely considered part of the "Intellectual Dark Web".

Not-Dave ;)

--edit--

Ooops, I forgot to answer what's a good conspiracy theory! Good, as in entertaining, is the moon landing hoax. Obviously it's bullshit though but I give them points for trying. UFO's, ghosts, Bigfoot etc... pretty much fall in this category. One of the best, for intrigue and nefarious-ness is the JFK assassination. I suppose a good one has just enough believability to keep you curious, and wanting an answer. Glenn Beck can spin a good one, particularly his George Soros ones. This election debacle is awesome as a conspiracy theory, and one of the best I've seen in a long time. It's the chance it might be true that keeps you watching, and again wanting an answer.

Freddie
December 2nd, 2020, 04:19 PM
[QUOTE=Freddie;310115]
@ethernautrix


The National Review ...good read...........

More BS from above....Excuses are like assholes Everybody got one [Dude in the movie]

Well gotta go..Some chow and glass of Overture by Opus One.....

And The Beat Goes On

Fred

Fascinatin'

2018, from that neo-con conservative rag The New York Times

Fascinatin...ain't it......Certainly Whoop Whoop Whoop Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk

Sure is Pal........and The Beat Goes On whilst the Grifter robs those suckers....

Still your friend and his..

Fred
Say Good Night Gracie


You consistently mistake (or misrepresent) the point. This isn't about whether or not some mass fraud event happened to Trump. It's about whether or not it could happen - to any candidate red or blue - and how we avoid that.

The problems with electronic voting machines has been pointed out by both sides, for almost 20 years. It has come to a head this year. We need to be able to assure the country in this and future elections if we're going to keep using these sorts of systems.

If you're not going to bother to look into it, and I'm fuggin' spoonfeeding the information at this point; at least stop with the "BS" / "Beat goes on" bullshit responses. It just exemplifies and exacerbates the divisiveness.

More BS...Perhaps you look into {again} Covid-19....[B]The Mike Foxtrot has helped kill so far 271K fellow Americans with 13.8 M cases of..........

And {pause} The beat Goes On.....

Now back to me black coffee and I'm gonna hit the road on me R-69S.......................

Still your friend and mine..Have a great day.............

Fred/B]

Easy to blame, but where’s your evidence? Do we need to wait until a judge reviews it? All I’m hearing is sounds from the echo chamber... Fascinatin’

Sure is Pal. I only hear one echo. 'Tis all BS.
And You Have the Last Word.....{ThumbsUpThingie}


Still your friend and mine,

Fred
.

welch
December 2nd, 2020, 08:32 PM
Today, Trump went on a lunatic rant claiming all his usual stuff. Link to video here, and summary of all the other Trumpists raging across the country.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-election-video/2020/12/02/f6c8d63c-34e8-11eb-a997-1f4c53d2a747_story.html

TSherbs
December 2nd, 2020, 08:39 PM
Today, Trump went on a lunatic rant claiming all his usual stuff. Link to video here, and summary of all the other Trumpists raging across the country.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-election-video/2020/12/02/f6c8d63c-34e8-11eb-a997-1f4c53d2a747_story.html

and he called it his most important speech of his presidency :crazy:

dneal
December 3rd, 2020, 06:05 AM
And which of you watched the speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjiITw6iB3U), as opposed to just retelling the headline you read in your favorite news source? I suspect neither.

Here's the digital front page of today's (3 Dec) Washington Post. You know, the paper that states "Democracy dies in darkness".

57614

Trump escalates baseless attacks with a 46-minute video rant.

That's a headline for a "news" article? Why are there adjectives characterizing it? Why isn't it over in the opinion column to the right?

Do you mean to tell me that almost 12 hours of hearings held in Michigan, by both houses of the legislature (the House hearing ended about 10pm last night), aren't newsworthy? Where's the testimony from former Senator Patrick Colbeck, who describes chain of custody problems he personally witnessed? Where's the testimony from Phil Waldron, who has analyzed the entire state of Michigan's election results. Does the Washington Post tell you that six Michigan districts had 100% voter turnout? Four had 120% voter turnout? The Edison system that feeds news outlets showed decimal votes? 12,000 voters also have obituaries? That's just scratching the surface of the testimony, which is a portion of the documentation included in his affidavit.

Democracy dies in darkness, indeed.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO-50JWHkNY

Chuck Naill
December 3rd, 2020, 06:21 AM
If you voted for this person surely you have some remorse. My HS chemisty instructor used to say, "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

dneal
December 3rd, 2020, 07:24 AM
If you voted for this person surely you have some remorse. My HS chemisty instructor used to say, "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."


57615

welch
December 3rd, 2020, 08:17 AM
Yesterday, Trump ranted an accumulation of nonsense:

Escalating his attack on democracy from within the White House, President Trump on Wednesday distributed an astonishing 46-minute video rant filled with baseless allegations of voter fraud and outright falsehoods in which he declared the nation’s election system “under coordinated assault and siege” and argued that it was “statistically impossible” for him to have lost to President-elect Joe Biden.

Standing behind the presidential lectern in the Diplomatic Reception Room and flanked by the flags of his office and of the country whose Constitution he swore an oath to uphold, Trump tried to leverage the power of the presidency to subvert the vote and overturn the election results.

The rambling and bellicose monologue — which Trump said “may be the most important speech I’ve ever made” and was delivered direct-to-camera with no audience — underscored his desperation to reverse the outcome of his election loss after a month of failed legal challenges and as some key states already have certified Biden’s victory.

The president’s latest salvo came a day after his attorney general, William P. Barr, said the Justice Department had found no evidence of voting fraud that could have changed the outcome of the election.

Trump delivered in person many of the claims he previously has advanced on social media or that his lawyers have brought on his behalf in courts, which have been debunked or summarily dismissed because there is no evidence to support them.

All of it seems to be an attempt to destroy constitutional democracy in the US, one of the oldest and, previously, most stable constitutional democracies in the world. For its connection to a global threat, see Graber, Levinson, and Tushnet, Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford, 2018). Note the chapters on Hungary and Poland.

Note, just for extreme Trumpism, that his General Flynn just called for Trump to declare martial law so that the US military can oversee a new election.

Of course, judges have tossed Trump's lawsuits, finding no credible evidence.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-election-video/2020/12/02/f6c8d63c-34e8-11eb-a997-1f4c53d2a747_story.html

dneal
December 3rd, 2020, 08:21 AM
Dr. Linda Lee Tarver. 29 year employee of the Michigan Secretary of State's office. 8 years spent on the commission for election integrity. Former civil rights commissioner.

Her 3 minute opportunity to speak to the Michigan Committee turned into 37 minutes of answering questions from Senators. Is any of this covered in the major media? Not that I can find.

Instead, you end up with individuals creating new YouTube channels to post the testimony, that will be quickly dismissed because they chose the name "The Kraken Institute". Clearly just conspiracy theorists. The failure of the media to cover the actual news clearly and comprehensively is precisely what drives people to partisan (and in many cases actual "conspiracy theory") sources of information.

No one will watch this either (which is to say that no one will make themselves informed, and listen to an argument reasonably put forth); but I'm not surprised.

Since we're now introducing "horse laughs" and arguments from emotion as reason instead of rhetoric, I'll just say that if you disagree with her you're a racist and a misogynist. That's how that works, right?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPotErNgH7g


BTW Chuck, I didn't vote for Trump in this or the 2016 election.

dneal
December 3rd, 2020, 08:31 AM
Yesterday, Trump ranted an accumulation of nonsense:

Escalating his attack on democracy from within the White House, President Trump on Wednesday distributed an astonishing 46-minute video rant filled with baseless allegations of voter fraud and outright falsehoods in which he declared the nation’s election system “under coordinated assault and siege” and argued that it was “statistically impossible” for him to have lost to President-elect Joe Biden.

Standing behind the presidential lectern in the Diplomatic Reception Room and flanked by the flags of his office and of the country whose Constitution he swore an oath to uphold, Trump tried to leverage the power of the presidency to subvert the vote and overturn the election results.

The rambling and bellicose monologue — which Trump said “may be the most important speech I’ve ever made” and was delivered direct-to-camera with no audience — underscored his desperation to reverse the outcome of his election loss after a month of failed legal challenges and as some key states already have certified Biden’s victory.

The president’s latest salvo came a day after his attorney general, William P. Barr, said the Justice Department had found no evidence of voting fraud that could have changed the outcome of the election.

Trump delivered in person many of the claims he previously has advanced on social media or that his lawyers have brought on his behalf in courts, which have been debunked or summarily dismissed because there is no evidence to support them.

All of it seems to be an attempt to destroy constitutional democracy in the US, one of the oldest and, previously, most stable constitutional democracies in the world. For its connection to a global threat, see Graber, Levinson, and Tushnet, Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford, 2018). Note the chapters on Hungary and Poland.

Note, just for extreme Trumpism, that his General Flynn just called for Trump to declare martial law so that the US military can oversee a new election.

Of course, judges have tossed Trump's lawsuits, finding no credible evidence.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-election-video/2020/12/02/f6c8d63c-34e8-11eb-a997-1f4c53d2a747_story.html

There's the left's version of the truth. For example: Catherine Herridge of CBS already pointed out the erroneous claim that Barr said the DOJ had found no evidence of fraud that could have changed the outcome of the election.


“Some media outlets have incorrectly reported that the Department has concluded its investigation of election fraud and announced an affirmative finding of no fraud in the election. That is not what the Associated Press reported nor what the Attorney General stated,” a spokesperson said. “The Department will continue to receive and vigorously pursue all specific and credible allegations of fraud as expeditiously as possible.”

TSherbs
December 3rd, 2020, 09:38 AM
Yesterday, Trump ranted an accumulation of nonsense:

Escalating his attack on democracy from within the White House, President Trump on Wednesday distributed an astonishing 46-minute video rant filled with baseless allegations of voter fraud and outright falsehoods in which he declared the nation’s election system “under coordinated assault and siege” and argued that it was “statistically impossible” for him to have lost to President-elect Joe Biden.

Standing behind the presidential lectern in the Diplomatic Reception Room and flanked by the flags of his office and of the country whose Constitution he swore an oath to uphold, Trump tried to leverage the power of the presidency to subvert the vote and overturn the election results.

The rambling and bellicose monologue — which Trump said “may be the most important speech I’ve ever made” and was delivered direct-to-camera with no audience — underscored his desperation to reverse the outcome of his election loss after a month of failed legal challenges and as some key states already have certified Biden’s victory.

The president’s latest salvo came a day after his attorney general, William P. Barr, said the Justice Department had found no evidence of voting fraud that could have changed the outcome of the election.

Trump delivered in person many of the claims he previously has advanced on social media or that his lawyers have brought on his behalf in courts, which have been debunked or summarily dismissed because there is no evidence to support them.

All of it seems to be an attempt to destroy constitutional democracy in the US, one of the oldest and, previously, most stable constitutional democracies in the world. For its connection to a global threat, see Graber, Levinson, and Tushnet, Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford, 2018). Note the chapters on Hungary and Poland.

Note, just for extreme Trumpism, that his General Flynn just called for Trump to declare martial law so that the US military can oversee a new election.

Of course, judges have tossed Trump's lawsuits, finding no credible evidence.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-election-video/2020/12/02/f6c8d63c-34e8-11eb-a997-1f4c53d2a747_story.html

crazy begetting crazy

TSherbs
December 3rd, 2020, 10:36 AM
No one will watch this either...

Talk about arguing from emotion...if you actually mean this, then don't post it.

dneal
December 3rd, 2020, 12:31 PM
No one will watch this either...

Talk about arguing from emotion...if you actually mean this, then don't post it.

You're really grasping with that one. I thought you were done with the thread except for kazoolaw.

kazoolaw
December 3rd, 2020, 02:34 PM
You're really grasping with that one. I thought you were done with the thread except for kazoolaw.

Sorry, no, I'm not taking responsibility for that.

Freddie
December 3rd, 2020, 04:29 PM
'Tis Like Flogging A Dead Horse.

Mmm-boy, are you ----------------------- ------------------ ------------------
------------------------ ------------------ ------------------------- ----------
Reggie Van Gleason III


{Freakin'SmileyFaceTimeThingie}

Fred

dneal
December 3rd, 2020, 05:38 PM
'Tis Like Flogging A Dead Horse.

Mmm-boy, are you ----------------------- ------------------ ------------------
------------------------ ------------------ ------------------------- ----------
Reggie Van Gleason III


{Freakin'SmileyFaceTimeThingie}

Fred

More from the TDS echo chamber.

Fascinatin’

TSherbs
December 3rd, 2020, 06:26 PM
December 8 is coming closer...

dneal
December 3rd, 2020, 06:32 PM
So back on topic.

The Georgia Senate held their hearings today, and it was one of the best I've seen so far. Most interestingly (or shockingly) was video evidence of likely fraud.

Jackie Pick shows video of the absentee counting area, and narrates it.

In summary:

- The video is from State Farm Arena in Fulton County, where absentee ballots are being counted.
- at around 10pm, workers announce that they are going to stop counting and will resume in the morning. Everybody is told to leave.
- You see ballot tubs being rounded up and secured, and people (to include the media and GOP observers) leave.
- 4-6 workers remain seated at their workstations.
- When all outside observers (and media) leave, they start pulling black tubs of ballots from under cloth covered tables and start scanning them.
- More ballots are brought in and scanning continues for approximately two hours.

The events and times correspond to affidavits filed. Were these affiants just delusional?

I'll be waiting with bated breath to see this reported by CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, etc...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keANzinHWUA

TSherbs
December 3rd, 2020, 07:08 PM
That's not "evidence of likely fraud." That's evidence of vote tallying after observers leave. There's a big difference. For "fraud," you need to prove that the votes on the paper do not correspond to votes in the e-system, and that this discrepancy was intentional. The accuracy of the count has already been paper-checked to great accuracy in this state, and again quality control checked with randomized samples.

Case dismissed.

dneal
December 3rd, 2020, 07:11 PM
That's not "evidence of likely fraud." That's evidence of vote tallying after observers leave. There's a big difference. For "fraud," you need to prove that the votes on the paper do not correspond to votes in the e-system, and that this discrepancy was intentional. The accuracy of the count has already been paper-checked to great accuracy in this state, and again quality control checked with randomized samples.

Case dismissed.

Dude, it's ILLEGAL for them to keep tallying after observers leave. Why did they start pulling shit out from under the couple of tables with cloths over them? Yeah, it's Trump and his supporters that are delusional.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

Admit it, you didn't watch the video.

--edit--

Here's a minute and a half video for your short attention span.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVP_60Hm4P8&ab

TSherbs
December 3rd, 2020, 07:26 PM
That's not "evidence of likely fraud." That's evidence of vote tallying after observers leave. There's a big difference. For "fraud," you need to prove that the votes on the paper do not correspond to votes in the e-system, and that this discrepancy was intentional. The accuracy of the count has already been paper-checked to great accuracy in this state, and again quality control checked with randomized samples.

Case dismissed.

Dude, it's ILLEGAL for them to keep tallying after observers leave. Why did they start pulling shit out from under the couple of tables with cloths over them? Yeah, it's Trump and his supporters that are delusional.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

p.s.: admit it, you didn't watch the video.

If it's "illegal," then get the charge right. This isn't "fraud," which is exactly what you called it.

No court will reverse or cancel or redo an election on this scenario because it ISNT FRAUD and isn't systemic (in other words, it doesn't matter). Certification of a vote does not imply that it was done entirely properly nor that every vote was properly tallied. That is NEVER (and has NEVER been) possible to ascertain. Every certified vote result in the past has had irregularities in it. You must know this. I feel like I am stating the obvious. Counting votes after observers leave is NOT FRAUD and is not even evidence of an inaccurate vote. This state's vote has been hand-recounted on paper and has been control-checked through random sampling. All the results have been within more narrow margins than ever before (the elections commissioner said this). This thing is done, except for the howling and gnashing of teeth of the losers trying to find any sort of fingerhold as the December 8 deadline cliff approaches....

dneal
December 3rd, 2020, 07:35 PM
More pedantry is all you got? You're ok with what's on video? Or just ok as long as your guy wins? Or just ok as long as the guy you hate loses?

"Hur, dur, you said 'fraud', and then you said 'illegal'..." Look buddy, I'm not a prosecutor and you're not a judge. This is a politics section of a pen forum.

Deflect all you want. Your TDS is astounding.

TSherbs
December 3rd, 2020, 07:50 PM
I'll add that I watched a news bit on the data and statistics team (from some university) that analyzes voting results for several states. The guy in charge said that what they do is recount a certain sample and then extrapolate from the results the likely hood that the winner that the state has in their counting process is the correct winner. When the likelihood hits something like 99.7% (I can't remember exactly), then they confirm the result. In other words, they don't in any way assess the legality or procedures or poll practices or methods of suppression. They just evaluate whether the state commission result has the correct winner. It's like a DNA match: there is an industry standard, established by scientists and accepted into law, that "confirms" the identity of me as TSherbs. An exact match of every piece of DNA is not possible nor required. I believe that state election commissions (I don't specifically know about Georgia, but the commissioner referred to "sample" confirmations) use this group's analysis as part of their decision whether to certify or not. This is what matters, not, as politicians repeat ad nauseam, that "every legal vote is counted." That absolute is actually never the legal standard for certification. Nor has it ever been "And no vote shall ever count if it was processed without observers." They do the best that they can, and then use recounts when the results are "close" (determined by statute), and then also a statistical analysis of sampling. The counts actually often go on for weeks, even if a state has been "called" until a state formally certifies a result. This happens every time. The bark this year is just noise from desperate losers. Even Gore did not ask for a recount until the last votes came in and the margin for Florida was under 1000. And he only pursued in Florida. And he only sued to keep the recount going when Florida wanted to end it (the marred paper votes were becoming very challenging to figure out). This is a whole different level of circus this time (none of which, of course, Trump insisted on in 2016---nor Hilary--despite Trump alleging that the Dems stole 3 million votes from him (Clinton's margin of victory).

He is a crass, baseless, opportunist liar, and anyone who follows his lead on this election rigging nonsense is being played for a fool.

dneal
December 3rd, 2020, 07:58 PM
Watching the news is your first problem. There's no news there - just opinion.

If you were watching the hearings, you would see the discussion about the legislatures (all Republican controlled) decertifying electors certified by the Secretaries of State and Governors and certifying their own. The Georgia hearings went into this in great detail, and whether Georgia or Federal law sets the standard since under Georgia law only the Governor or 2/3 of the legislature can call a special session. The other side of the argument was that Federal law trumps that, since the election of a President is a Federal issue. They discussed what happens if two sets of electors are submitted to the Senate, and so forth.

Do I think three or four legislatures are going to do that? Not really. Do I think there's more to this than just a conspiracy theory? Based on the evidence presented at the State hearings - yes. Do I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that Democrats conspired to win states by committing fraud in a few key cities? No, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were the case either.

TSherbs
December 3rd, 2020, 08:14 PM
Watching the news is your first problem. There's no news there - just opinion.

If you were watching the hearings, you would see the discussion about the legislatures (all Republican controlled) decertifying electors certified by the Secretaries of State and Governors and certifying their own. The Georgia hearings went into this in great detail, and whether Georgia or Federal law sets the standard since under Georgia law only the Governor or 2/3 of the legislature can call a special session. The other side of the argument was that Federal law trumps that, since the election of a President is a Federal issue. They discussed what happens if two sets of electors are submitted to the Senate, and so forth.

Do I think three or four legislatures are going to do that? Not really. Do I think there's more to this than just a conspiracy theory? Based on the evidence presented at the State hearings - yes. Do I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that Democrats conspired to win states by committing fraud in a few key cities? No, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were the case either.

You said that the video clip was "likely evidence of fraud." I watched it and commented ONLY on that. Then I added info on the certification process that I had heard about.

I care little about these various "hearings." They are political and desperate and misguided and fruitless. They aren't about changing this outcome. They are cynical ploys to agitate the base, raise money, and set people up for future elections. Maybe a few states will look into changing the way they allocate electors (like my state, Maine, already has). We don't get any of this bullshit because we (usually) are more middle-of-the-road and we divide our electors--it is not winner-take-all. If any legislature dared to overide the certified result in their state, there will be a gun war. I don't believe that any legislatures want that (they, I would guess, would be shot first). There are some crazies out there itching for a fight, but they are not the elected officials. America takes its democracy and power to change leaders very very seriously. No state will actually mess with that. This is all just for show.

Freddie
December 3rd, 2020, 08:15 PM
'Tis Like Flogging A Dead Horse.

Mmm-boy, are you ----------------------- ------------------ ------------------
------------------------ ------------------ ------------------------- ----------
Reggie Van Gleason III


{Freakin'SmileyFaceTimeThingie}

Fred

More from the TDS echo chamber.

Fascinatin’

Pal, it sure is. Next time use cacophonous TDS EC....Sounds better..However..Not applicable to me...Methinks you're Projecting...

Fred
along with Mr. Brewster Bubblebath, Mr. Christopher Blemish, Mr. Cutting Grove and of course Mr. Oliver Stain from
the Good Cop Bad Cop Production Company.

kazoolaw
December 4th, 2020, 06:49 AM
dneal-

Be of good cheer. TS now admits that the voting counting shown in the video is illegal. It may be a bridge to far for him to ask himself "Why was excluding observers made illegal?" Or, "What legimate purpose is served by excluding observers, breaking the law, and counting votes in secret?" Or, "Might there be a connection between those who break the law counting ballots and those in charge of certifying an election?"

Breaking the law by excluding legally mandated observers is evidence of intent to conceal. And what lawful activity needs to be concealed? What reason would there be to break the law and by that very action create doubt about the credibility of those entrusted with ensuring the validity of the election?

Having TS admit that the voting process was illegal, though he thinks that's no big deal, is an achievement. I'll leave it to others to deconstruct how "fraud" is not "illegal."

dneal
December 4th, 2020, 07:30 AM
*sigh*

Let my try this one more time.

I am not a Trump supporter, and I am not a Trump hater. I have never voted for him.

The country is becoming more polarized, and I think dangerously polarized. Media, both mainstream and social, are outlets of propaganda and spin; reinforcing the opinions of the lunatic left and rabid right.

Half the electorate made Trump President, and wanted him to have a second term. The man is an obnoxious narcissist, and they overlook that for some reason. It behooves people to try to understand why, beyond accusatory statements of they must be racists, deplorables, fascists, etc... Discourse is lost.

That half of the electorate believes something fraudulent happened during this election. It behooves people to try to understand why they believe that too. The circumstantial evidence reinforces their view. Ignoring it, shouting them down, "fact-checking" them, or calling it "baseless" - whether it comes from them or the President himself - drives them to more conspiratorial outlets where they are exposed to baseless conspiracy theories.

The half of the electorate that despises Trump are happy to nod sagely as their preferred "information" outlets reinforce their opinion. They also reiterate their mantras. "It's been debunked". "There's no evidence". One side sits in its echo chamber, and the other side is driven to a different one. Everyone ends up shouting their inane buzz-phrases they gleaned from somewhere else at each other.

This board appears to me to lean left, so I tend to focus on presenting the competing view. I am amazed at the vitriol and invective that results, when seemingly fragile worldviews are challenged. The outright dismissiveness is incredible.

Election fraud is as old as elections. I don't care if Biden is inaugurated. I do care that we implement a system that assures all voters of it's validity. It doesn't really matter how much integrity the system does or doesn't have, when people can legitimately argue the appearance of that integrity (or lack thereof). The Trump supporters have a significant amount of circumstantial evidence to make that argument.

We see what the radical left does when they don't get their way. Occupy Wall Street, Trump's election, BLM, etc... result in blocked roadways, smashed windows, burned city blocks, people dragged from their cars and beaten, but that seems to be ok. Protestors get run over by scared people in cars, and they're called racists and terrorists. I don't think any of you have truly any idea of what could potentially happen when the "deplorables" reach their tipping point, because you make no effort to try to understand them.

TSherbs
December 4th, 2020, 09:16 AM
As a side note, I blame the pressures of the Electoral College process and the winner-take-all allocation for much of these state tensions and lawsuits today. I am in favor of an amendment terminating the EC and using the standard of a national popular vote for Presidency. Short of that, I am in favor of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (although that would clearly be challenged in court by those who fear that they have something to lose--most likely the whites in less populous states). My guess is that the EC has an expiration date on it if about 10-20 more years. Then it will be amended out, or otherwise negated.

kazoolaw
December 4th, 2020, 11:15 AM
My guess is that the EC has an expiration date on it if about 10-20 more years. Then it will be amended out, or otherwise negated.

I don't see a "Best if used by" date in the US Constitution, but please feel free to review Article II for yourself.

Ray-VIgo
December 4th, 2020, 01:42 PM
An attempt to Amend the Constitution in the present climate would precipitate a civil war. We are at the point (and perhaps have been for some time) where the losing side claims illegitimacy of the result. If Trump had won, the left would claim fraud and vote suppression, and with Biden winning, we have Trump and a sizeable number of supporters claiming fraud. To bootstrap a Constitutional amendment onto the back of that would make things worse, not better. To take a result a significant number of people view as illegitimate, and then to claim that result as a popular mandate to proceed with the amendment process is gas on the fire. If thousands and thousands of people are this pissed off about a presidential election, it would only be more intense if you then try to amend the Constitution as a follow-up. The same is probably true if the left tries to alter the number of justices on the Supreme Court. I'd normally say the best measure is to start with measures that have a chance at a consensus, at least, but I'm not even sure anymore what those can be.

Chuck Naill
December 4th, 2020, 02:59 PM
I was very pleased with the selection of several experts being asked to serve in the new administration's COVID task force including, Drs Fauci, Olsterhom, and Bright. This is how you deal with a problem, IMHO, by getting the right people on the bus. I don't have to be the smartest person in the room, nor do I have to get the glory for success, although I take responsibility for the results. My job is to assemble. It is like developing a winning team, knowing how to recognize talent and getting them on the team.

TSherbs
December 4th, 2020, 04:36 PM
An attempt to Amend the Constitution in the present climate would precipitate a civil war. We are at the point (and perhaps have been for some time) where the losing side claims illegitimacy of the result. If Trump had won, the left would claim fraud and vote suppression, and with Biden winning, we have Trump and a sizeable number of supporters claiming fraud. To bootstrap a Constitutional amendment onto the back of that would make things worse, not better. To take a result a significant number of people view as illegitimate, and then to claim that result as a popular mandate to proceed with the amendment process is gas on the fire. If thousands and thousands of people are this pissed off about a presidential election, it would only be more intense if you then try to amend the Constitution as a follow-up. The same is probably true if the left tries to alter the number of justices on the Supreme Court. I'd normally say the best measure is to start with measures that have a chance at a consensus, at least, but I'm not even sure anymore what those can be.
I understand your point. I just think that this change is inevitable over time. The amendment process takes consensus through super-majority and then lengthy ratification. It can only happen once there is reasonable consensus. Yeah, right now it's not happening. But I think that it is coming, especially if we have more situations like 2000 and 2016 (and this year doesn't help).

Empty_of_Clouds
December 4th, 2020, 05:04 PM
So back on topic.

The Georgia Senate held their hearings today, and it was one of the best I've seen so far. Most interestingly (or shockingly) was video evidence of likely fraud.

Jackie Pick shows video of the absentee counting area, and narrates it.

In summary:

- The video is from State Farm Arena in Fulton County, where absentee ballots are being counted.
- at around 10pm, workers announce that they are going to stop counting and will resume in the morning. Everybody is told to leave.
- You see ballot tubs being rounded up and secured, and people (to include the media and GOP observers) leave.
- 4-6 workers remain seated at their workstations.
- When all outside observers (and media) leave, they start pulling black tubs of ballots from under cloth covered tables and start scanning them.
- More ballots are brought in and scanning continues for approximately two hours.

The events and times correspond to affidavits filed. Were these affiants just delusional?

I'll be waiting with bated breath to see this reported by CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, etc...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keANzinHWUA

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/video-georgia-election-false-fraud_n_5fcac976c5b619bc4c330575

TSherbs
December 4th, 2020, 05:58 PM
So back on topic.

The Georgia Senate held their hearings today, and it was one of the best I've seen so far. Most interestingly (or shockingly) was video evidence of likely fraud.

Jackie Pick shows video of the absentee counting area, and narrates it.

In summary:

- The video is from State Farm Arena in Fulton County, where absentee ballots are being counted.
- at around 10pm, workers announce that they are going to stop counting and will resume in the morning. Everybody is told to leave.
- You see ballot tubs being rounded up and secured, and people (to include the media and GOP observers) leave.
- 4-6 workers remain seated at their workstations.
- When all outside observers (and media) leave, they start pulling black tubs of ballots from under cloth covered tables and start scanning them.
- More ballots are brought in and scanning continues for approximately two hours.

The events and times correspond to affidavits filed. Were these affiants just delusional?

I'll be waiting with bated breath to see this reported by CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, etc...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keANzinHWUA

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/video-georgia-election-false-fraud_n_5fcac976c5b619bc4c330575

Desperate losers produce desperate arguments.

None of it is going to matter in the outcome, but the corrosive effect on "evidence" and logic could be longer lasting.

dneal
December 4th, 2020, 06:11 PM
@EoC - Yes, and Facebook also started "Fact-checking" shortly after it began appearing on that site. You've cited Huffpost. You are aware that is a liberal publication, aren't you? You're just reinforcing my point about the problem(s) with the media and their credibility. The Governor of Georgia said the evidence is troubling, and called for a signature audit (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/georgia-governor-calls-for-signature-audit?fbclid=IwAR0ydlKrp3mcvdTXsejA3WQpjQRtaola-LaVK4KYGDKHlCNkvl8TfVcipSM). Curiously, that bit of information from the chief executive of the State of Georgia (I think that is a pretty important "Georgia official", but I might be wrong...) is not included in the piece you linked.

Your piece says: "Other election workers started to pack up, Sterling told The Associated Press in an interview. They put prepared ballots back in boxes and away under a table “to close out for the night.” We clearly see that is not true. The video shows black containers being taken from under a table, not placed there. The video shows that they did not "close out for the night", when they spent two more hours apparently scanning ballots. It is curious that they finished up and cleared out just before the Republican poll watches re-enter the room around 1am.

Facebook's "fact-checker" cites Frances Watson, chief investigator for the Georgia secretary of state (https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2020/12/fact-check-video-from-ga-does-not-show-suitcases-filled-with-ballots-pulled-from-under-a-table-after-poll-workers-dismissed.html?fbclid=IwAR3YXGpwYAzqQ1gVbNOfRZBW0-Lf6CFkOwXybnToHJbt4B3Ykg_I0cV3XW0), as saying: "There wasn't a bin that had ballots in it under that table. It was an empty bin and the ballots from it were actually out on the table when the media were still there, and then it was placed back into the box when the media were still there and placed next to the table." Clearly the video shows the bins being pulled from under the table, drug over to a workstation, opened, and papers (presumably ballots) being pulled out and stacked on a cleared workstation. Then we see what appears to be the alleged scanning of them.

But hey, let's accept what some journalism major wrote instead of what we can see with our own eyes.

dneal
December 4th, 2020, 06:15 PM
Desperate losers produce desperate arguments.

None of it is going to matter in the outcome, but the corrosive effect on "evidence" and logic could be longer lasting.

That's correct Winston. 2+2=5

I'm not sure how you can be teaching a class on Orwell's 1984, when you seem to have not understood the lessons it teaches.

welch
December 4th, 2020, 06:49 PM
It has been argued above that Huffington Post cannot be truthful because it is a "liberal" magazine, even though Huffington gathered explanations from people running the counting, and those explanations refute the interpretations that conspiracy fantasists put to the tape.

Empty_of_Clouds, at the beginning of Bruno Latour's Pandora's Hope, Latour mentions that a colleague had asked, "Do you believe in reality?" We Americans have faced, for four years, a conspiracy-theory from Trump that aims to shred any sense of reality. We are holding on, but it is obvious that Trumpists are laying out a fantasy as dishonest as the right-wing German "stab in the back". Trump won by a landslide but, somehow, voting machines all recorded Trump votes as being for President-Elect Biden.

In court in Georgia, Trump's "elite strike team lawyer" presented her Kraken to a US Appeals Court without having first had a hearing at which evidence might be viewed. Writing for the court, Judge Brasher says, "We don't view cases. We review them". You cannot ask us to rule on a case that has not been decided -- not even heard -- said Judge Brasher. Stopping just short of calling Sidney Powell a moron, the court noted that she seems unable "to take yes for an answer", since the District Court -- the one that hears evidence -- had worked through last weekend to agree that three Georgia counties should not reset their voting machines until a hearing today. That would be one at which the state could respond and the court could consider evidence. You have to ask the court for another hearing date, said the Circuit Judge.

Here is today's ruling against Kraken Powell.

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/20-14480_Powell-Appeal-Order-Denied.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1MpojHvF60gqlF_LIDfs-kNAJrdvFMI6ykUzTFyIEi4NdKJjMmcBc50oE

welch
December 4th, 2020, 06:51 PM
It is claimed above that the governor of Georgia is concerned about the video planted above, but there is no link to Governor Kemp's statement.

dneal
December 4th, 2020, 07:10 PM
It is claimed above that the governor of Georgia is concerned about the video planted above, but there is no link to Governor Kemp's statement.

You probably didn't get it because the Ministry of Truth chucked it down a memory hole.

Here's what the proles are saying:https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...CNkvl8TfVcipSM

welch
December 4th, 2020, 07:32 PM
Meanwhile, both the Daily Mail and the Post (Australia) are marveling at Trump's star witness in Michigan, Melissa Carrone. (Note: over the summer, I watched an Australian series called Rake, a series that wrote off Rudy Giuliani's character as "too bizarre even for us").


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofFjdL6q_18

dneal
December 4th, 2020, 07:35 PM
Meanwhile, both the Daily Mail and the Post (Australia) are marveling at Trump's star witness in Michigan, Melissa Carrone. (Note: over the summer, I watched an Australian series called Rake, a series that wrote off Rudy Giuliani's character as "too bizarre even for us").


Oh that's one obnoxious woman. No argument from me. I don't find her credible, simply because of her demeanor. She goes from what she thinks she saw to all kinds of bullshit.

dneal
December 4th, 2020, 07:37 PM
It'll be interesting to see how the video of a poll worker scanning the same stack of ballots three times gets "fact-checked".

You guys can tell me what Huffpost has to say about it tomorrow.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiREC3Zy20E

Empty_of_Clouds
December 4th, 2020, 07:46 PM
Meanwhile, both the Daily Mail and the Post (Australia) are marveling at Trump's star witness in Michigan, Melissa Carrone. (Note: over the summer, I watched an Australian series called Rake, a series that wrote off Rudy Giuliani's character as "too bizarre even for us").


Oh that's one obnoxious woman. No argument from me. I don't find her credible, simply because of her demeanor. She goes from what she thinks she saw to all kinds of bullshit.

I don't find Trump and most of his sycophants to be credible for the same reason. :)

TSherbs
December 4th, 2020, 09:03 PM
Here is today's ruling against Kraken Powell.

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/20-14480_Powell-Appeal-Order-Denied.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1MpojHvF60gqlF_LIDfs-kNAJrdvFMI6ykUzTFyIEi4NdKJjMmcBc50oE

pretty clear dismissal, again

These lawyers should be sued for malpractice. What a waste of time. And suckers are paying for it.

dneal
December 4th, 2020, 09:29 PM
Here is today's ruling against Kraken Powell.

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/20-14480_Powell-Appeal-Order-Denied.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1MpojHvF60gqlF_LIDfs-kNAJrdvFMI6ykUzTFyIEi4NdKJjMmcBc50oE

pretty clear dismissal, again

These lawyers should be sued for malpractice. What a waste of time. And suckers are paying for it.

You guys should read more than the stuff that comes out of the Ministry of Truth. This is the first paragraph of the ruling. You couldn’t even bother to get that far?

How embarrassing.

“ This appeal arises from last-minute litigation that alleges widespread election-related misconduct and seeks sweeping relief. The issue before us, however, is a narrow question of appellate jurisdiction: has the district court entered an order that we have jurisdiction to review? Because the answer to that question is “no,” we must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and allow the proceedings to continue in the district court.”

dneal
December 4th, 2020, 09:32 PM
Meanwhile, both the Daily Mail and the Post (Australia) are marveling at Trump's star witness in Michigan, Melissa Carrone. (Note: over the summer, I watched an Australian series called Rake, a series that wrote off Rudy Giuliani's character as "too bizarre even for us").


Oh that's one obnoxious woman. No argument from me. I don't find her credible, simply because of her demeanor. She goes from what she thinks she saw to all kinds of bullshit.

I don't find Trump and most of his sycophants to be credible for the same reason. :)

I don’t find Buddha approving your enlightenment, since you appear to have skipped the compassion block of instruction.

Chuck Naill
December 5th, 2020, 06:01 AM
One of my favorite pundits said that people who choose to believe in conspiracies cannot be talked out of them. While any candidate could and should question an outcome and ask for a recount, the current charade is clearly an attempt to draw in supporters and fund raise.

When someone seeks only their own power with no interest for the common man, the prudent and evidence seeking person sounds the alarm so as to deminish the probabity that the fence sitters remain put for a season.

I have taken the position that I will only discuss with someone who is wanting a discussion and not an arguement. It should be obvious without me saying so the danger of Trump. For those interested in reading, Bob Woodward, John Bolton, and Mary Trump have provided the same message from different perspectives.

kazoolaw
December 5th, 2020, 08:18 AM
This is the first paragraph of the ruling. You couldn’t even bother to get that far?

How embarrassing.

“ This appeal arises from last-minute litigation that alleges widespread election-related misconduct and seeks sweeping relief. The issue before us, however, is a narrow question of appellate jurisdiction: has the district court entered an order that we have jurisdiction to review? Because the answer to that question is “no,” we must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and allow the proceedings to continue in the district court.”

The first paragraph of the opinion, the first few pages of the Complaint. Can't hold TS to understand legalities, but one does wonder if he teaches more than the first chapter of any book in his classes.

TSherbs
December 5th, 2020, 08:47 AM
Here is today's ruling against Kraken Powell.

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/20-14480_Powell-Appeal-Order-Denied.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1MpojHvF60gqlF_LIDfs-kNAJrdvFMI6ykUzTFyIEi4NdKJjMmcBc50oE

pretty clear dismissal, again

These lawyers should be sued for malpractice. What a waste of time. And suckers are paying for it.

You guys should read more than the stuff that comes out of the Ministry of Truth. This is the first paragraph of the ruling. You couldn’t even bother to get that far?

How embarrassing.

“ This appeal arises from last-minute litigation that alleges widespread election-related misconduct and seeks sweeping relief. The issue before us, however, is a narrow question of appellate jurisdiction: has the district court entered an order that we have jurisdiction to review? Because the answer to that question is “no,” we must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and allow the proceedings to continue in the district court.”

Please stop with this "you don't read this" or "watch this" bullshit.

That first paragraph (the ruling and the summary of the reason) is what is so pathetic

They submitted the case to the wrong court. This is either intentionally obtuse because it is just for show. Or it is inept. Both answers are ethically objectionable, and I think that the lawyers wasting the court time should be fined for it.

TSherbs
December 5th, 2020, 08:48 AM
December 8 is just a few days away now....

TSherbs
December 5th, 2020, 08:53 AM
I can't wait to watch what SNL does with Rudy's leaking brains and personages like Melissa Carone. Please, please!

dneal
December 5th, 2020, 09:34 AM
Here is today's ruling against Kraken Powell.

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/20-14480_Powell-Appeal-Order-Denied.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1MpojHvF60gqlF_LIDfs-kNAJrdvFMI6ykUzTFyIEi4NdKJjMmcBc50oE

pretty clear dismissal, again

These lawyers should be sued for malpractice. What a waste of time. And suckers are paying for it.

You guys should read more than the stuff that comes out of the Ministry of Truth. This is the first paragraph of the ruling. You couldn’t even bother to get that far?

How embarrassing.

“ This appeal arises from last-minute litigation that alleges widespread election-related misconduct and seeks sweeping relief. The issue before us, however, is a narrow question of appellate jurisdiction: has the district court entered an order that we have jurisdiction to review? Because the answer to that question is “no,” we must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and allow the proceedings to continue in the district court.”

Please stop with this "you don't read this" or "watch this" bullshit.

That first paragraph (the ruling and the summary of the reason) is what is so pathetic

They submitted the case to the wrong court. This is either intentionally obtuse because it is just for show. Or it is inept. Both answers are ethically objectionable, and I think that the lawyers wasting the court time should be fined for it.

I'll stop when you offer more than condescending pronouncements of your clearly biased opinions. You claim to have looked at the evidence. You claim none of it is credible. You claim the advocates are all crazy conspiracy theorists. You do all that with little evidence yourself, other than a "harrumph" and "case dismissed" to a Huffpost article or a link to a legal opinion you obviously haven't looked at.

Had you actually been following this, or had you actually read the opinion Welch linked; you would know that Sidney Powell asked for voting machines to be secured for forensic evaluation. The lower court issued a temporary order for some machines. She appealed to the higher court for all. The higher court dismissed her appeal, for the reason noted - namely that they decided they don't have jurisdiction since the case in the lower court is still open.

So I'll stop calling you out when you stop pretending you're paying attention. At least you had the honesty to admit that you're not paying attention to the hearings. The amount of evidence presented in several states, by decent citizens with concerns, should be more deserving than your outright dismissal. Note that (again) I'm not talking about evidence that Trump won the election, but evidence that there is a very big problem with how we're conducting our elections.

dneal
December 5th, 2020, 09:38 AM
I can't wait to watch what SNL does with Rudy's leaking brains and personages like Melissa Carone. Please, please!


Maybe Big Brother will take your suggestion for a future two minutes of hate on your telescreen.

dneal
December 5th, 2020, 09:57 AM
One of my favorite pundits said that people who choose to believe in conspiracies cannot be talked out of them. While any candidate could and should question an outcome and ask for a recount, the current charade is clearly an attempt to draw in supporters and fund raise.

When someone seeks only their own power with no interest for the common man, the prudent and evidence seeking person sounds the alarm so as to deminish the probabity that the fence sitters remain put for a season.

I have taken the position that I will only discuss with someone who is wanting a discussion and not an arguement. It should be obvious without me saying so the danger of Trump. For those interested in reading, Bob Woodward, John Bolton, and Mary Trump have provided the same message from different perspectives.

Honestly Chuck, you seem to want a "discussion" where all agree with your point of view; but the ambiguity of your posts prevents that from being clear. It is possible for people of differing points of view to have a discussion; but usually not when one side seems to intentionally misrepresent the other, and also tries to slip it in with what could be perceived as passive-aggressive, insincere politeness.

TSherbs
December 5th, 2020, 09:58 AM
and....I missed the additional dismissal in Michigan yesterday: again, legal incompetence (missing deadlines) and barking up a tree without even evidence of a dog.

Tick, tock.

dneal
December 5th, 2020, 10:17 AM
and....I missed the additional dismissal in Michigan yesterday: again, legal incompetence (missing deadlines) and barking up a tree without even evidence of a dog.

Tick, tock.

Link?

welch
December 5th, 2020, 11:54 AM
Another day, another five-state loss for Trump's campaign against reality.


President Trump and his allies faced a crush of defeats in post-election litigation Friday, a further sign of their ongoing failure to overturn President-elect Joe Biden’s victory through the courts and to gain traction through baseless claims of widespread fraud.

Just over a month after the Nov. 3 election, the Trump campaign and other Republicans suing over Biden’s win were dealt court losses across six states where they have tried to contest the results of the presidential race — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada and Wisconsin.

Judges ruled decisively that Trump’s side has not proved the election was fraudulent, with some offering painstaking analyses of why such claims lack merit and pointed opinions about the risks the legal claims pose to American democracy.

“It can be easy to blithely move on to the next case with a petition so obviously lacking, but this is sobering,” wrote Justice Brian Hagedorn of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, agreeing with the court’s decision not to hear a lawsuit filed by a conservative group that sought to invalidate the election in that state.

“The relief being sought by the petitioners is the most dramatic invocation of judicial power I have ever seen,” added Hagedorn, who is part of the court’s conservative wing. “Judicial acquiescence to such entreaties built on so flimsy a foundation would do indelible damage to every future election. . . . This is a dangerous path we are being asked to tread.”

Two of the biggest defeats took place in Arizona and Nevada, where judges tossed full-scale challenges to the states’ election results filed by the Republican Party and the Trump campaign, respectively. Both judges noted in their opinions that the plaintiffs did not prove their claims of fraud.

In a detailed, 35-page decision, Judge James T. Russell of the Nevada District Court in Carson City vetted each claim of fraud and wrongdoing made by the Trump campaign in the state and found that none was supported by convincing proof. The judge dismissed the challenge with prejudice, ruling that the campaign failed to offer any basis for annulling more than 1.3 million votes cast in the state’s presidential race.

The campaign “did not prove under any standard of proof that illegal votes were cast and counted, or legal votes were not counted at all, due to voter fraud, nor in an amount equal to or greater than” Biden’s margin of victory, which was about 33,600 votes, Russell wrote.

During a court hearing Thursday afternoon, Trump campaign lawyer Jesse R. Binnall said the Nevada election had been “stolen” from Trump and claimed a “robust body of evidence” supported his conclusion.

Among its allegations, the campaign claimed that more than 61,000 people voted twice or from out-of-state.

In his ruling, Russell concurred with election officials and academic experts that there is no evidence for this, and specifically dismissed witness declarations that had been touted by the campaign, calling them “self-serving statements of little or no evidentiary value.”

The judge added that the campaign’s so-called expert testimony “was of little to no value,” and called a claim of ballot-stuffing in broad daylight — made by one anonymous person and not corroborated by anyone else — “not credible.”

In a statement, the Nevada Republican Party said it intended to immediately appeal the ruling to the state’s highest court.

Further:


In an interview with Fox Business Network’s Lou Dobbs on Friday, Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani dismissed the Nevada loss, saying the campaign would appeal but that “Nevada’s not critical to us.” Instead, he said the campaign was pinning its hopes on efforts in Georgia, Michigan, Arizona and, “boy, on Wisconsin.”

However, the Trump campaign already suffered defeat at the Wisconsin Supreme Court this week. And in federal court, District Judge Brett H. Ludwig expressed skepticism Friday about Trump’s arguments as he held an initial status hearing in a suit seeking to overturn Biden’s victory there.

While the hearing largely dealt only with setting a rapid schedule of filings and hearings next week, Ludwig — a Trump nominee who took the bench only in September — noted that the president has requested “extraordinary” relief.

He added that he had a “very, very hard time” seeing why Trump brought the action in federal court. Ludwig also termed a Trump request to “remand” the election back to the state legislature “bizarre.”

Meanwhile, in Arizona, Judge Randall Warner of the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled Friday that he found “no misconduct, no fraud and no effect on the outcome of the election” in a suit brought by the Arizona Republican Party and its chairwoman, Kelli Ward.

Warner found that GOP lawyers had identified nine mistakes during an inspection of 1,626 ballots that had been duplicated because the originals were damaged or could not be scanned. But those few errors did not amount to a widespread problem that cast doubt on Biden’s winning margin of more than 10,000 votes — or demand the “extraordinary act” of annulling the more than 3.3 million votes cast by Arizonans, he ruled.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nevada-trump-lawsuit-dismissed/2020/12/04/844d420a-3682-11eb-a997-1f4c53d2a747_story.html

TSherbs
December 5th, 2020, 12:14 PM
Yup

Tick, Tock

welch
December 5th, 2020, 12:14 PM
This is the first paragraph of the ruling. You couldn’t even bother to get that far?

How embarrassing.

“ This appeal arises from last-minute litigation that alleges widespread election-related misconduct and seeks sweeping relief. The issue before us, however, is a narrow question of appellate jurisdiction: has the district court entered an order that we have jurisdiction to review? Because the answer to that question is “no,” we must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and allow the proceedings to continue in the district court.”

The first paragraph of the opinion, the first few pages of the Complaint. Can't hold TS to understand legalities, but one does wonder if he teaches more than the first chapter of any book in his classes.

Stop being silly and illogical. Read the entire opinion. I posted the link. You read the first paragraph and ignored the rest? It says, simply, that Kraken Powell cannot appeal a decision that has not been made. The appeals court reviews decisions. In the United States, US District Courts hear cases. They consider evidence. After a District Court rules, a party may appeal.

Judge Brasher, writing for the court, reminded "Kraken" that the District Court had worked all last weekend to decide to give "Kraken" a hearing. Last minute, emergency, all of that. The District Court chose Friday, December 4, for that hearing. Instead, "Kraken" tried to appeal to the Circuit Court, ignoring the hearing that "Kraken" had requested.

Anyone can read between the lines, and hear Brasher say, "You morons. You just cost yourselves a week. You demanded that the District Court scramble to your emergency, and then you ignored the hearing you asked for. If you have to start over, well, tough luck".

TSherbs
December 5th, 2020, 02:02 PM
Stop being silly and illogical. Read the entire opinion. I posted the link. You read the first paragraph and ignored the rest? It says, simply, that Kraken Powell cannot appeal a decision that has not been made. The appeals court reviews decisions. In the United States, US District Courts hear cases. They consider evidence. After a District Court rules, a party may appeal.

Judge Brasher, writing for the court, reminded "Kraken" that the District Court had worked all last weekend to decide to give "Kraken" a hearing. Last minute, emergency, all of that. The District Court chose Friday, December 4, for that hearing. Instead, "Kraken" tried to appeal to the Circuit Court, ignoring the hearing that "Kraken" had requested.

Anyone can read between the lines, and hear Brasher say, "You morons. You just cost yourselves a week. You demanded that the District Court scramble to your emergency, and then you ignored the hearing you asked for. If you have to start over, well, tough luck".

Yes.

And by law by December 8 all disputes over the certification must be resolved. Those liars thought that they could do an-end around of the initial evidentiary stage of the court process.

Denied.

Thank god for the principles of the state election officials and of the state magistrates who have been enforcing the rule of law.

welch
December 5th, 2020, 02:11 PM
Here is the text of the judge from Nevada finding against Trump. Incidentally, that makes the score about 49 - 1 against all the Trumpist lawsuits. Best I remember, Trump's one win allowed observers to move from ten feet to sex feet of the ballot-counters, which is not relevant to much of anything.

The judge ordered the Trump electors to pay the court costs of the defendants, Nevada's Biden electors. That suggests that the judge found the Trumpist suit close to being baloney. Judge James T. Russell explains:

- Why Nevada bought a machine to sort mail-in ballots and to check signatures. Nevada expected many more mail-in ballots because people voters Covid-19.

- That this machine is widely used in the US, and is similar to machines that the Post Office uses to sort mail. The signature check software is used by US banks to verify signatures on about 80% of personal checks.

- The Trump campaign / Republican party presented affidavits, but no depositions. The Judge reminds Trump's lawyers of a Federal decision that "An affidavit is generally inadmissable hearsay", because there is no chance to cross-examine the maker of an affidavit. The affidavits were dismissed.

- The Trump campaign presented two people who claim to be experts. Both claim that they saw a pattern of voter fraud, but neither could provide the data on which they had based their opinion.

- Trump lawyers offered a man named Scott Gessler who gave an opinion on "the transition to and administration of mail in voting". Gessler's opinion lacked citations of facts and evidence, being based entirely "on a handful of affidavits that he took no steps to corroborate through investigation".

The defendants -- Nevada electors pledge to Joe Biden -- provided a stack of counter evidence, checked and backed-up, and available to be examined by the Trump lawyers. For details, read the ruling

The judge tossed the case and -- unusually -- ordered the Trumpists to pay the County's court costs.

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/20-OC-00163-Order-Granting-Motion-to-Dismiss-Statement-of-Contest.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2-bucxNRrNV_Jv4qS9vvtgDV0kMZfYrNcAL_uCmHZxdk3PGDdJb8 23AA8

dneal
December 5th, 2020, 02:19 PM
Oh holy shit you guys are deep in your echo chambers.

Sidney Powell: Objection, your honor.
Judge: Overruled
You guys: THE KRAKEN GOT OWNED!!! DISMISSED!!! IT'S OVER!!! TIK TOK!!!

Trump isn't going to flip 3 or more states. Biden will be inaugurated. Can we move past your end-zone celebrations now?

Are you not the least bit concerned that there are flaws in the system that can be exploited? I know it's hard to get past Trump and your TDS when you consider that question, but make some effort. These issues go back a more than a decade. Look at the 2005 Carter-Baker report.

LINK to the full .pdf report (https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/1472/file/3b50795b2d0374cbef5c29766256.pdf)

TSherbs
December 5th, 2020, 02:48 PM
Here is the text of the judge from Nevada finding against Trump. Incidentally, that makes the score about 49 - 1 against all the Trumpist lawsuits. Best I remember, Trump's one win allowed observers to move from ten feet to sex feet of the ballot-counters, which is not relevant to much of anything.

The judge ordered the Trump electors to pay the court costs of the defendants, Nevada's Biden electors. That suggests that the judge found the Trumpist suit close to being baloney. Judge James T. Russell explains:....

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/20-OC-00163-Order-Granting-Motion-to-Dismiss-Statement-of-Contest.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2-bucxNRrNV_Jv4qS9vvtgDV0kMZfYrNcAL_uCmHZxdk3PGDdJb8 23AA8

The most common refrain through all of the 150+ findings in this document is "the record does not support." To a lesser degree, the judge writes, "contestants did not prove..."

The order granting motion to dismiss is an overwhelming rejection of the non-evidence and non-expert "witnesses," as you point out, welch. Dismissed, and Contestants shall pay Defendants' costs.

Bam.



Thank you for posting this.

TSherbs
December 5th, 2020, 03:08 PM
Oh holy shit you guys are deep in your echo chambers.

Sidney Powell: Objection, your honor.
Judge: Overruled
You guys: THE KRAKEN GOT OWNED!!! DISMISSED!!! IT'S OVER!!! TIK TOK!!!

Trump isn't going to flip 3 or more states. Biden will be inaugurated. Can we move past your end-zone celebrations now?

Are you not the least bit concerned that there are flaws in the system that can be exploited? I know it's hard to get past Trump and your TDS when you consider that question, but make some effort. These issues go back a more than a decade. Look at the 2005 Carter-Baker report.

LINK to the full .pdf report (https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/1472/file/3b50795b2d0374cbef5c29766256.pdf)

Nothing in this election was "exploited," no "cracks" were pried open to result in a fraudulent election. I am not worried about that, no. Very responsible and thorough professional people were put on a task force in 2017 to oversee this very problem. We have been re-assured by every state commissioner and by the person in charge of federal oversight of this election that it was the most secure election ever.

No, I am not worried.

I am more worried by the actions of these delusional and lying losers who continue to lie in public (when not under oath) and who have now thrown 50+ prominent lawsuits at the conclusions of the process, all for their selfish ends. I do worry about the corrosive power of these actions upon a suggestible population in uncertain times.

If there is an "echo" here that you are hearing, it is the voice of truth and law FINALLY coming out of this court process. Prepare to hear more as this moves forward toward its inevitable conclusion.

Aren't you glad to be learning the truth? Isn't this relieving to find out that the claims have been declared without merit?

dneal
December 5th, 2020, 03:55 PM
So I'm a little frustrated that you would post the above, when you've also said that you have ignored the hearings and not read the affidavits. How could you possibly come to a conclusion one way or another? By reading a comment from a bureaucrat whose job it is to run an election, assuring you that everything went perfectly? I'm not so trusting of bureaucrats.

Quickly, to address your libeling your fellow citizens as "delusional lying losers who continue to lie in public (while not under oath)...". These people signed affidavits. That's under oath. That bears the penalty of perjury. I'm happy to agree that Ms. Carrone appears a little unhinged, but to portray her as representative of all affiants is horribly disingenuous. Dr. Tarver appeared to be well versed in the process and clear on the mistakes made. Monica Palmer (Chair of Wayne Co Board of Canvassers) testimony was illuminating. There are many more, and you can find each affiant's verbal testimony Here (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC00TAzQ9OQuISj_9v4nccbQ/videos). Most are 3-5 minutes. I see regular people sharing their concerns.

I found Russell Ramsland's testimony to the Georgia Senate quite credible, and quite concerning. His company's analysis shows that Georgia, for example, had roughly 200k ballots logged as mailed but not returned. They purged a little over half of those (and rightly so). Around 96k are logged as mailed, not returned, but voted. He found some instances of ballots being voted on the same day they were mailed (or the following day, in some cases).

Again, I'm not assigning nefarious motive or asserting that it's clear evidence that 96k erroneous votes went to Biden. The point I continue to make is that we should do better. It is an opportunity for fraud, whether or not someone capitalized on it in this or past elections. We need to make sure no one can in future elections. These sort of discrepancies are precisely what allow conspiracy theories to be advanced with enough semblance of legitimacy to spread widely.

TSherbs
December 5th, 2020, 04:24 PM
So I'm a little frustrated that you would post the above, when you've also said that you have ignored the hearings and not read the affidavits. ... You're a piece of work, dneal. You're frustrated by my responses whether I read the document or not. I don't pay attention to the "hearings." I never watch a minute of them, except when some folks post some snippets of them.

I read many of the documents, and have not said that I do not. YOU (and kazoolaw) have accused me of this, but I haven't felt like disabusing you of your bias against me. Whatever.

You can be as worried as you want. I have found relief in the ongoing process of the victory of truth and evidence. December 8 will be another step forward. Then December 14. Then January 20.

dneal
December 5th, 2020, 04:36 PM
You're a piece of work, dneal

You too. Kisses.

Freddie
December 5th, 2020, 05:42 PM
[B]The BS just keeps on piling up.....'Tis over the world has moved on..........

Weird.

Fred
chow time /B]

dneal
December 5th, 2020, 06:30 PM
Weird.


Well, you're the expert on the topic.

Chuck Naill
December 5th, 2020, 08:26 PM
This reminds me of the a nurse treating COVID-19 patients.

"ll while gasping for breath on 100% Vapotherm. They tell you there must be another reason they are sick. They call you names and ask why you have to wear all that “stuff” because they don’t have COViD because it’s not real. Yes. This really happens. And"
"I can’t stop thinking about it. These people really think this isn’t going to happen to them. And then they stop yelling at you when they get intubated. It’s like a ... horror movie that never ends. There’s no credits that roll. You just go back and do it all over again."

These people, probably dead, beleived lies, that the virus is not real and that "we are turning the corner". The same person telling them he won the election.