Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 120

Thread: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,348
    Thanks
    781
    Thanked 979 Times in 545 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    Yes, all the way. The best solution is in the hands of Donald Trump and other top Republican and internet influencers. Maybe Q.

  2. #22
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,034
    Thanks
    471
    Thanked 718 Times in 355 Posts
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_of_Clouds View Post
    Granted, and it's easy to see why these followers hold these beliefs. What I would say though, and echoing my previous post, is that responsibility for encouraging change in these beliefs needs to come from a group or person that the followers trust and accept the word of. In this case that surely has to be the POTUS/GOP and nobody else. Simply put, these followers are never going to accept any evidence, proof or similar if it is coming from a source that they've already decided to distrust.

    I agree with the need to change perception. It's how that appears to be problematic but really is only so because key players are stubbornly sticking to their guns and further inflaming the situation.

    That's my take on it. I don't think the problem in general is difficult to understand, nor the solution. What does worry me a bit is that there are now more people out there who may resist any attempts to change their perception, no matter what the source.
    The problem has gotten to the point that even rational, otherwise respected republicans like Dan Crenshaw and Trey Gowdy, are crucified for even suggesting it.

    Originally I thought an investigation led by those four States' (Republican controlled) legislatures would satisfy them one way or another. Now I'm not so sure. I think there's merit to a variation of Ted Cruz's investigatory panel consisting of 5 republicans, 5 democrats and 5 judges (he suggested Supreme Court Justices, but I don't think that's necessary). Cruz's proposal was to hold off on the electoral count, and I didn't agree with that; but the panel still makes sense. Their work would need to be very transparent - i.e.: no mulling it over behind closed doors for a year or more.

    I'm worried about what could happen if the rhetoric from both sides continues. Democrats are inflaming the situation with the impeachment/25th amendment proposal, asking for senators to be disbarred or expelled from the Senate for speech made on the Senate floor (which is even more protected than 1st Amendment free speech); etc... That's all compounded by the "purge" going on in social media.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Empty_of_Clouds's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Aotearoa/New Zealand
    Posts
    2,223
    Thanks
    540
    Thanked 1,805 Times in 833 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    Indeed. I don't really understand how the Constitution gets applied to specific scenarios; from what I read the censuring of senators/congressman comes under the 14th Amendment. Having had a read through the 14th, I have to admit I have no idea how that applies. Obviously, I am not a scholar of such arcana.

    As for the social media 'purge', I am not really sure that there is anything specifically incorrect with what they are doing. However, as above, I remain unsure how precisely US law appends to social media sites - a lack of certainty that has in no way been improved after watching several congressional hearings where the participants on both sides were vague in their arguments.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,348
    Thanks
    781
    Thanked 979 Times in 545 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    Cruz's idea is terrible and is not meant seriously as an option. It was proposed for political optics in his own state, and nationally if he tries to run again. No council of members has (nor can have) any legal oversight of any election or its legitimacy except the states' Secretaries of State and the bureaucracy underneath them. Proposing anything else is unlawful and unworkable.

    The only thing left at this point is acceptance or rejection of the 306-225 result, and only Donald Trump and other leaders of the "steal" movement can have any sway over their followers. This crisis is a failure of leadership and a readiness to scapegoat a political loss onto one's enemies (that the POTUS ennabled and encouraged). Only reversing that will work.

    Building bipartisan confidence in the next election cycle is a different can of worms. Leaders of both parties should be coming together already in order to make plans for that, and should make repeated public statements in support of the professionalism and dedication of our election staffers and auditors. Republican House and Senate members, especially, will have to say these things, or perhaps he we go again.

    Since it is the case that in 7 of the last 8 Presidential election cycles Democrats have actually turned out more voters nationally than Republicans, the battle comes down to specific swing states and the Republicans know that they have a real fight over either turnout or legitimacy of results. Trump got beaten clearly nationally (biggest margin since Obama '08) so all he had left as an option was to undermine the legitimacy of the result in certain states as much as he could. This may continue to be the case if the Dems continue to have turnout success like they have had more recently and if the GOP continues not to serious try to win more urban and Black voters. The demographic shift of the country to majority-minority does not bode well for the GOP if they do not change some of their approach, and Trump's defeat this time (and the dearth of GOP popular vote wins) is partly a signal of this. Only the EC is keeping the GOP in the White HOuse since 2008. So I am not confidant that the GOP will relent on this "steal" issue, and I suspect that they will next morph it into a call for voter restrictions on access and voter identification. They will play on this conspiracy of fraud in order to enact tougher rules in certain swing states (at least).
    Last edited by TSherbs; January 12th, 2021 at 08:49 PM.

  5. #25
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,034
    Thanks
    471
    Thanked 718 Times in 355 Posts
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_of_Clouds View Post
    Indeed. I don't really understand how the Constitution gets applied to specific scenarios; from what I read the censuring of senators/congressman comes under the 14th Amendment. Having had a read through the 14th, I have to admit I have no idea how that applies. Obviously, I am not a scholar of such arcana.

    As for the social media 'purge', I am not really sure that there is anything specifically incorrect with what they are doing. However, as above, I remain unsure how precisely US law appends to social media sites - a lack of certainty that has in no way been improved after watching several congressional hearings where the participants on both sides were vague in their arguments.
    Professor Alan Dershowitz is one of (if not the) preeminent Constitutional scholar. He calls this impeachment "weaponizing" the impeachment clause, and that there's no real possibility for the Senate to convict before Biden is inaugurated. If so, then Trump is a citizen and the Congress has no jurisdiction (he specifically cites the text of "removing a President", which Trump would no longer be). They're trying to invoke the 14th amendment because of the 3rd article.

    "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

    That explains why "insurrection" has been the language used by politicians and media. Anyway, the goal is to make him ineligible for reelection. It seems kind of petty and vindictive, and I don't think he would win a second term in 2024, but stranger things have happened.

    As for the "purge". The whole thing is messy. Key points are:

    - Right now, social media sites are not considered publishers and are not legally responsible for their content (that's the "section 230" stuff you might be hearing about). The argument is that if they are curating their sites then they are publishers and lose section 230 protections.

    - Conservatives accuse them of singling them out. There is some merit to this argument.

    - Lots of charges of hypocrisy (for the above) and that "Hang Mike Pence" still trends on Twitter with no removals, Kathy Griffin reposted the picture of her holding the beheaded Trump, etc...

    I think the "purge" is actually going to be an interesting legal issue. Of course leaders in Mexico, France and Germany have criticized it as dangerous to free speech. They have an ethical point that I think resonates with many here in the U.S., and our American Civil Liberties Union (typically a very left leaning organization) has also criticized the move(s). I saw that Poland is going to fine sites $2.2M per incident. It makes it hard for a company like Twitter when they're essentially global and subject to a whole lot of jurisdictions.

    Lastly is the effort to get rid of Parler. Apparently they're suing Amazon for breach of contract, and it also appears that Amazon Web Services signed a multi-year deal with Twitter.

    There's lots of animosity against the social media giants for things like this, "shadow banning", data collection, etc... The world doesn't really know how to deal with "social media". How does it fit into legal structures, what liabilities does it have, what should it be allowed or forbidden to do, etc... I wouldn't want to be in Zuckerberg's or Dorsey's shoes right now.
    Last edited by dneal; January 12th, 2021 at 08:57 PM.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dneal For This Useful Post:

    Empty_of_Clouds (January 12th, 2021)

  7. #26
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,034
    Thanks
    471
    Thanked 718 Times in 355 Posts
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    Cruz's idea is terrible and is not meant seriously as an option. It was proposed for political optics in his own state, and nationally if he tries to run again. No council of members has (nor can have) any legal oversight of any election or its legitimacy except the states' Secretaries of State and the bureaucracy underneath them. Proposing anything else is unlawful and unworkable.
    Long on opinion and short on explanation. Why is Cruz's template terrible (not the specific hold off on counting electors business)? The U.S. Congress has jurisdiction over federal election laws. They can appoint whatever they want and give them whatever authorization they want. It's definitely legal. Enforcement (like charging "contempt of Congress") is another matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    The only thing left at this point is acceptance or rejection of the 306-225 result, and only Donald Trump and other leaders of the "steal" movement can have any sway over their followers. This crisis is a failure of leadership and a readiness to scapegoat a political loss onto one's enemies (that the POTUS ennabled and encouraged). Only reversing that will work.
    The "only" thing? Surely you can be more creative than that. Anyway, this exemplifies an inability to understand the opposition's perspective. Trump certainly isn't going to do that, and neither are his supporters.

    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    Building bipartisan confidence in the next election cycle is a different can of worms. Leaders of both parties should be coming together already in order to make plans for that, and should make repeated public statements in support of the professionalism and dedication of our election staffers and auditors. Republican House and Senate members, especially, will have to say these things, or perhaps he we go again.
    Yep. It's almost like we should have a bipartisan commission (*cough* or panel *cough*) investigate and make recommendations to implement. Crazy, I know.

    Oh wait, what was that thing Jimmy Carter and James Baker did in 2005? Oh yeah, they published this report.

  8. #27
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,034
    Thanks
    471
    Thanked 718 Times in 355 Posts
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    The five pillars from the 2005 Carter/Baker report (emphasis mine):

    1.3 TRANSFORMING THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM - FIVE PILLARS

    The recommendations of our Commission on Federal Election Reform aim both to increase voter participation and to assure the integrity of the electoral system. To accomplish these goals, the electoral system we envision should be constructed on the following five sturdy pillars:

    - Voter registration that is convenient for voters to complete and even simpler to renew and that produces complete, accurate, and valid lists of citizens who are eligible to vote;

    - Voter identification, tied directly to voter registration, that enhances ballot integrity without introducing new barriers to voting, including the casting and counting of ballots;

    - Measures to encourage and achieve the greatest possible participation in elections by enabling all eligible voters to have an equal opportunity to vote and have their votes counted;

    - Voting machines that tabulate voter preferences accurately and transparently, minimize under - and over - votes, and allow for verifiability and full recounts; and

    - Fair, impartial and effective election administration.

    How many of these pillars did we fail?

    We know voter roles are always jacked up. Dead people voting, out of state people voting in the wrong or multiple states, etc... Happens every election.
    Voter identification (the bane of Democrats) tied directly to voter registration certainly was an issue this election.
    When judges, officials and even the company obstruct or refuse inspection of voter machines, you don't have transparency or allow for verifiability.
    Way too many things to list on "fair, impartial and effective election administration", but to be fair that pillar is kind of fuzzy, happy language.

  9. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,348
    Thanks
    781
    Thanked 979 Times in 545 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    We "failed" only under one of these: voter registration. And that is because the idea has failed to pass muster in the courts because of the failure to meet the criteria of the second half of the sentence: that the requirement pose no "barriers" to voting. And the need to satisfy the unbolded "pillar" above of encouraging and facilitating the greatest amount of voter participation (eg expanding mail-in voting or early voting, especially during a pandemic).

    Please. In their hand-counted audit of every vote, Georgia found TWO confirmed dead person votes out of FIVE million total votes.

    The rest of these are already satisfied, excepted to the disgruntled losing side that has had the mindworm infection of conspiracy implanted in them.

  10. #29
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,034
    Thanks
    471
    Thanked 718 Times in 355 Posts
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    We "failed" only under one of these: voter registration. And that is because the idea has failed to pass muster in the courts because of the failure to meet the criteria of the second half of the sentence: that the requirement pose no "barriers" to voting. And the need to satisfy the unbolded "pillar" above of encouraging and facilitating the greatest amount of voter participation (eg expanding mail-in voting or early voting, especially during a pandemic).

    Please. In their hand-counted audit of every vote, Georgia found TWO confirmed dead person votes out of FIVE million total votes.

    The rest of these are already satisfied, excepted to the disgruntled losing side that has had the mindworm infection of conspiracy implanted in them.
    Rather than go through the complete list of your selectivity, I'll just point out that I'm pretty sure there are 49 other States you didn't account for.

    Please, indeed.

  11. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,348
    Thanks
    781
    Thanked 979 Times in 545 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Why is Cruz's template terrible (not the specific hold off on counting electors business)?
    Yes, exactly that. Cruz wasn't merely saying, let's look into the election process for next time. He was specifically attempting to hold up recording the certification of the EC results in specific states pending review. THAT was a terrible idea and will not ever occur simply to review/approve a result that has already been certified by a state.

    Having a commission to look into election processes more generally for the future is never a bad idea, as long as it is an attempt to make them more accurate, equitable, and accessible. "Transparency" is all right, to a point (protecting the citizen's privacy and protecting them from reprisal or coercion). As I wrote above, the average joe citizen has no right or obligation to be shown the workings of voting tallying machines. We already are shown the voting results of every county in the country, and every district in local elections. Observers of both parties are allowed in the counting spaces. Cameras record the counting, also. What more "transparency" could there reasonably be?

  12. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,348
    Thanks
    781
    Thanked 979 Times in 545 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    We "failed" only under one of these: voter registration. And that is because the idea has failed to pass muster in the courts because of the failure to meet the criteria of the second half of the sentence: that the requirement pose no "barriers" to voting. And the need to satisfy the unbolded "pillar" above of encouraging and facilitating the greatest amount of voter participation (eg expanding mail-in voting or early voting, especially during a pandemic).

    Please. In their hand-counted audit of every vote, Georgia found TWO confirmed dead person votes out of FIVE million total votes.

    The rest of these are already satisfied, excepted to the disgruntled losing side that has had the mindworm infection of conspiracy implanted in them.
    Rather than go through the complete list of your selectivity, I'll just point out that I'm pretty sure there are 49 other States you didn't account for.

    Please, indeed.
    49 more? What for? I am not trying to persuade you or anyone here. It's just a chat thread in a pen forum. But if someone else wants to post research data of dead voting on 49 other states, I'll look at it. I can be persuaded with data that I get a chance to look over and read.

  13. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,348
    Thanks
    781
    Thanked 979 Times in 545 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    Just for jollies, I looked up dead voters in Maine, my state.

    I didn't get a hit right off, but I got the Michigan State Department's official statement on their election reliability (several aspects).

    Here is the relevant conclusion to the section on "dead persons" voting: We are not aware of a single confirmed
    case showing that a ballot was actually cast on behalf of a deceased individual. There are many reasons
    why these claims have proven to be inaccurate:...


    I read these reasons, and they are all logical and thorough and entirely predictable. You just have to decide to accept the hard work and thorough professionalism of the persons working on this up through the system and not be swayed by a lying immoral creature of a president. But hey. We each get to make up our minds.

    I'm going to bed. Maybe another day, for more jollies, I'll look up what Maine has to say, if anything.

    So, amended:

    Georgia: 2 out of 5,000,000 votes
    Michigan: 0 out of 5,450,000 votes
    Maine??

    edited to add: Maine has had 0 cases of voter fraud from "dead" or "deceased" persons in the last 40 years (as far back as The Heritage Foundation report looked in their research). I haven't found an official Maine statement yet, but now at almost midnight I really must go to bed.
    Last edited by TSherbs; January 12th, 2021 at 11:07 PM.

  14. #33
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,034
    Thanks
    471
    Thanked 718 Times in 355 Posts
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    Just for jollies, I looked up dead voters in Maine, my state.

    I didn't get a hit right off, but I got the Michigan State Department's official statement on their election reliability (several aspects).

    Here is the relevant conclusion to the section on "dead persons" voting: We are not aware of a single confirmed
    case showing that a ballot was actually cast on behalf of a deceased individual. There are many reasons
    why these claims have proven to be inaccurate:...


    I read these reasons, and they are all logical and thorough and entirely predictable. You just have to decide to accept the hard work and thorough professionalism of the persons working on this up through the system and not be swayed by a lying immoral creature of a president. But hey. We each get to make up our minds.

    I'm going to bed. Maybe another day, for more jollies, I'll look up what Maine has to say, if anything.

    So, amended:

    Georgia: 2 out of 5,000,000 votes
    Michigan: 0 out of 5,450,000 votes
    Maine??

    edited to add: Maine has had 0 cases of voter fraud from "dead" or "deceased" persons in the last 40 years (as far back as The Heritage Foundation report looked in their research). I haven't found an official Maine statement yet, but now at almost midnight I really must go to bed.
    *Sigh*

    If you look back, you'll see I posted "Dead people voting, out of state people voting in the wrong or multiple states, etc..." You do see that the sentence continued beyond "dead people", don't you? You do see "etc...", don't you?

    Yet you select one thing, pick one state, and make an assertion that no one can verify is true or false; as if you have demolished the entire argument. I can cite all kinds of numbers of dead voters, curious amounts of 100+ year old voters (some even 220 years old), and other various forms of fraudulent votes.

    I'm honest though. I don't know for sure if those numbers are accurate. They're just someone's claims from studying the issue. You on the other hand like to assert that your data is accurate, "debunking" anything to the contrary.

    It's curious how that seems to work. Republican makes claim of fraud, you say they're a delusional liar. Democrat makes claim Republican is wrong, and you accept without question. SEE!!! THEY DEBUNKED IT!!! you cheer with delight. I see two competing claims with varying evidence to support either claim. I don't know the truth. (and before you start about Georgia and the SecState being GOP (ignoring that there are "never-Trumpers" in the GOP), look at Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania)

    Note that "we are not aware..." is not the same as "there are no...". One sure has a lot of wiggle room. It's almost as if a politician with a legal background selected specific language for a specific reason.
    Last edited by dneal; January 13th, 2021 at 04:28 AM.

  15. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,348
    Thanks
    781
    Thanked 979 Times in 545 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    Like I said, I am not interested in persuading you, dneal, of anything. You said I left out 49 states, which I did (not that this matters in a pen site chat room). I will look up some more, just for fun. You can ignore the purport of what I post or say I am dodging or pry at the rhetorical differences of the language all you want.

    I'll repeat the list and the numbers each time I find something. Feel free to ignore it or question it as you please.

  16. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,348
    Thanks
    781
    Thanked 979 Times in 545 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    I can't find anything about fraudulent "deceased" votes on any official Arizona state websites. But I am quite impressed with how transparent and thorough the Secretary of State's page is. Wow. Even the "Equipment Certification Advisory Committee" agenda and meeting times are posted (open to public attendance and comment), the list of various ballot-counting machines and their firmware and manufacturer, all the links for the live-streaming of ballot counting in the various counties, even the list of machines used going back years. Looks to me like they are bending over backwards to give citizens information and access (beyond anything that has been done in the past, I imagine).

    A court ruling over a law restricting assisting a neighbor with their vote being delivered, the court asserted in its ruling that in Arizona "there has never been a case of voter fraud associated with ballot collection charged in Arizona.

    That's about collection, not deceased persons, I know. But the "never" is definitive, and I remember that this issue also received some circulation on social media.

    I'll move on to another swing state later today.

  17. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,348
    Thanks
    781
    Thanked 979 Times in 545 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    Pennsylvania: total votes for president = 6,850,000

    Total cases of voter fraud = 3 (incidentally, all older males who voted in the name of other persons, and all for Donald Trump). I think that only 2 of these is about voting for a deceased person, so that number is 2.

    Updated list (confirmed deceased voter fraud)

    Georgia: 2 out of 5,000,000 votes
    Michigan: 0 out of 5,450,000 votes
    Pennsylvania: 2 of of 6,850,000 votes
    __________________________________
    Running Total: 4 of 17,300,000 votes [2.31 x 10 *(-5) %]

    Arizona?
    Last edited by TSherbs; January 13th, 2021 at 08:16 AM.

  18. #37
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,034
    Thanks
    471
    Thanked 718 Times in 355 Posts
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    I'm not asking you to persuade me. I'm pointing out that either side has motive, and their credibility is subject to skepticism.

    You accept one, and dismiss the other. I'm skeptical of both. Pro-Trumpers have an interest in "proving" there's more than the SecState is reporting. A SecState (particularly when of the opposing party) has motive too. Job security (can't get reelected or reappointed if you're incompetent), is a non-nefarious example.

    --edit--

    You'll surely make some point on why governments would lie, and that people are surely conspiracy theorists if they think that; but I'll give you a real example not related to elections.

    For years people here said there were mountain lions in the State. They photographed prints, had anecdotal sightings (this was before game cameras were ubiquitous), and Bigfoot-ish blurry pictures. Our department of conservation routinely denied it. Conspiracy theories started.

    And then one was hit by a car on the highway. Pictures were in the newspapers. Suddenly the department of conservation "discovered" there was indeed a mountain lion population in Missouri, and they needed to carefully tend to it.
    Last edited by dneal; January 13th, 2021 at 08:36 AM.

  19. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,348
    Thanks
    781
    Thanked 979 Times in 545 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    Looking into Texas now. I have not yet found any references to cases of fraud in this presidential election, but I will keep looking. No references to "dead" or "deceased" voters, either.

    (There was a case in 2017 with a mayor who had people change their addresses so that they could vote for him--and he won. He got arrested and cuffed and taken out of his office.)

    Ken Paxton, the Texas AG, has a web page that refers generally to ongoing active cases of voter fraud, but does not name them or even their categories. Interestingly, he also has not put out a news sheet on voter fraud from his office since March of 2020 (start of pandemic?). There are no references to any cases arising from any fraud in 2020. But I will keep looking. The biggest concern for Texas seems to be the possible voting of non-citizens. Again, I have not found yet any facts about any cases from the 2020 November election and this issue.

    The Texas Secretary of State issued a statement on November 30, 2020, praising the Governor for supporting the election procedures in the counties and for what was a "resounding success" and a "safe, free, and fair election" in the state. No other statements about fraud or "dead" or "deceased" voting from her office or from the office of the Texas AG. In the Texas newspapers there is one reference in the Houston Chronicle (behind a paywall) to the AG "closing" 16 "minor cases" earlier in 2020, but I can't see what they are, and he does not refer to them in a press release, so....

    So, looking like a "0" for November 2020 for Texas, but I will hold off for a bit... Texas cast 11,100,000 votes in 2020 for president.
    Last edited by TSherbs; January 13th, 2021 at 10:12 AM.

  20. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,348
    Thanks
    781
    Thanked 979 Times in 545 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    Updated list (confirmed deceased voter fraud in November 2020 election)

    Georgia: 2 out of 5,000,000 votes
    Michigan: 0 out of 5,450,000 votes
    Pennsylvania: 2 out of 6,850,000 votes
    Texas: 0(?) out of 11,100,000 votes
    __________________________________
    tentative Running Total: 4 of 28,400,000 votes [1.41 x 10 *(-5) %] or 0.0000141%
    Last edited by TSherbs; January 13th, 2021 at 10:57 AM.

  21. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,348
    Thanks
    781
    Thanked 979 Times in 545 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

    Wisconsin (another temporarily disputed state):

    The Wisconsin Elections Commission puts out a yearly review of "possible" election fraud cases, of which there were 19 prior to the November election (report dated Sept 1). No cases had anything to do with "dead" or "deceased" voters. I don't know how many of these "possibles" became actual cases the commission is not required to state that), and the report does not cover the November 2020 election. Seven cases were undeliverable registration forms (no resident at the address given), 3 were other "errors" on the registration forms, four were people who tried to vote twice (either different locations or different methods). No mention of dead voter cases (no impersonation fraud). I acknowledge that this report predates November 2020, but I am just reporting this as context for the historical degree and type of possible fraud that the Election Commission identified in the prior 12 months in every election (local, primaries, general elections) that they held in the state. Both the AG and the Secretary of State have no other statements about confirmed cases of impersonation fraud, and the press does not report any either.

    I can't find any other reference to actual confirmed voter fraud in the state in any news source or official state document. And no references at all to the idea of "dead" or "deceased" voting.

    The report from the prior 12 months found 24 possible instances of voter fraud in all of the elections cycle (local, primaries, general elections). Most of them were labeled as attempts to vote twice. Again, zero cases of impersonation or voting for deceased persons were recorded as suspected.

    So, Wisconsin has a tentative "0" from me also. Wisconsin recorded 3,240,000 votes for president in the 2020 election.
    Last edited by TSherbs; January 13th, 2021 at 12:53 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •