I Cannot Fathom This Election

[Empty_of_Clouds]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/...uite-5.5-a.pdf

https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/f...ssment_508.pdf

Curious though, what are your illegitimate concerns?

[Detman101]

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]

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]

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/...uite-5.5-a.pdf



https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/f...ssment_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]

Many of you are conflating "evidence" with "proof". There is evidence. Whether or not it's proof remains to be seen.

[Ray-VIgo]

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]

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/...uite-5.5-a.pdf



https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/f...ssment_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]

@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]

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/...uite-5.5-a.pdf

https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/f...ssment_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]

@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]

dear lord

Time to move on.

[dneal]

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]

Barr: DOJ yet to find widespread voter fraud that could have changed 2020 election

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wil...-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.