I Cannot Fathom This Election

[welch]

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/polit...15d_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]

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. 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.

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]

. 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]

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]

... 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]

. 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]

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]

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]

. 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]

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]

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

[kazoolaw]

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]

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]

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]

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]

:::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]

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]

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]

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]

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.