2020 Election Commentary

[Shasarak]

A decisive win for Biden. The last time an incumbent president's challenger got as high a percentage of the vote* was 1932. Even Jimmy Carter held Ronald Reagan below that percentage; incumbency is clearly a powerful advantage, as it led to the only Republican popular vote win since 1988. Trump was just that bad a president and candidate.

(* Based on present vote totals; entirely possible for Biden to end up over 80 million votes and with over 51% of the popular vote.)

How much money did you get paid to post this? Was it at least in USD?

I would have asked for Biden Bucks, I mean Bitcoin.

[Shasarak]

Maybe you should look at total votes rather then a percentage.

51% of a hundred voters is not so impressive.

51% of the voters can get you over 90% of the votes if they are the voters casting thousands of votes each.

I believe in the one man, one vote system.

The Patrician is the man and he gets the vote.

[EOTB]

Actually, many posters are claiming that it is proven that the election was completely fraudulent. Even if you aren't one of the ones who considers it proven --

The gimme proof people are asking for Proof, the technical term.  They are not asking for evidence, the technical term, which concerned posters are using "proof" for in the colloquial sense - which is perfectly fucking appropriate on a forum that is not a court room.

I'm not interested in your skeptical opinion or wish to invest effort into changing it.  It should invite derision or a re-evaluation of overall credibility in future discussions.  But that's best done without bothering to express it to the person re-evaluated.

[EOTB]

A decisive win for Biden. The last time an incumbent president's challenger got as high a percentage of the vote* was 1932. Even Jimmy Carter held Ronald Reagan below that percentage; incumbency is clearly a powerful advantage, as it led to the only Republican popular vote win since 1988. Trump was just that bad a president and candidate.

(* Based on present vote totals; entirely possible for Biden to end up over 80 million votes and with over 51% of the popular vote.)

[SHARK]

Greetings!

An interesting commentary by Glenn Beck.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[videohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsjfHWj3BGE][/youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsjfHWj3BGE

[oggsmash]

 There is NO EVIDENCE OF VOTER FRAUD
There is NO EVIDENCE OF WIDESPREAD VOTER FRAUD
There is NO EVIDENCE OF ENOUGH WIDESPREAD VOTER FRAUD TO OVER TURN THE ELECTION
  EVERYONE DOES IT IT IS WHAT IS BEST FOR THE COUNTRY MOVE ON TO KEEP YOUR JOB!!
It seems the first two are done, and the NYT is already pushing the third.  I guess I will wait for the chorus to sing to strike through the third.

[Ghostmaker]

>Democrats deny any fraud occurred
>Democrats suggest people move to Georgia for the sole purpose of voting in that state's Senate runoffs.

Someone once suggested people shouldn't be allowed to vote in state elections until they'd been residents for a year. That suggestion's looking better all the time.

Also, what would a Biden cabinet look like?

Short answer: like shit.

[Mistwell]

So the answer is no, you're a coward, and you are not even willing to back up your convictions with a simple bet concerning avatars. Gotcha. Exactly what I thought.

I posed a video of the guy DIRECTLY DISPUTING what you said. There is no "bet". None. You have lost, and even if Jesus himself came from the heavens, you'd insist you were correct. So kindly go fuck yourself, shill.

So now they have a recording of him recanting his allegations, and they have a new signed statement from him recanting his claims.

"When an agent from the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General asked Hopkins if he stood by his sworn statement that a supervisor "was backdating ballots" mailed after Election Day, Hopkins answered: "At this point? No.""

"During the recorded interview, however, federal agents repeatedly reminded Hopkins that his cooperation was voluntary, and Hopkins agreed to sign a document stating that he was not coerced."

"Asked by an agent whether he had legal representation, Hopkins said Project Veritas had a lawyer on retention "in case there's anything that happens." The agent told Hopkins that if he had a personal lawyer, "I would make whatever efforts possible to have that person here." Hopkins said he didn't have a lawyer."

"Hopkins also repeatedly expressed regret for signing the initial affidavit because it overstated what he knew and witnessed, according to the recording."

"He told agents the affidavit was written by Project Veritas."

"He said he was not fully aware of its contents because he was in "so much shock I wasn't paying that much attention to what they were telling me.""

"In the interview with federal agents, though, Hopkins said he overheard only a few portions of a conversation between the postmaster and another worker. The two were standing at a distance that made it difficult to hear the full conversation, but Hopkins said he could make out three phrases: "ballots on the 4th," "all for the 3rd," and "one postmarked on the 4th.""

""My mind probably added the rest," he told the investigators, before acknowledging that he never heard anyone use the word "backdate.""

Again, you're being a sucker. The original affidavit was written by Project Veritas, using this schlub for their usual bullshit. Their tool hadn't even read the statement they wrote for him. Then in private to the investigators he recanted. On the record. Stating clearly he was not being coerced, and didn't want his lawyer. Then once back in public, realizing his life was essentially over after he did this stupid stunt, he went back to lying on YouTube. To get the gofundme cash and try and rescue some reputation.

How are you still supporting this guy? He's so obviously lying it's not even funny anymore.  Well, it's still a bit funny I suppose. And Project Veritas is so obviously shitheads in this as well, just like they were caught lying just a couple of weeks ago. How are you still being taken in by all of this?

[oggsmash]

  Well Winson, sometimes 2+2 is 5.  Sometimes it is 3.  We are trying so very hard to help you Winston. Please keep trying.  It is so very hard to become sane.

[Spike]

The points I made is that there are a lot of reported red flags. Those red flags must be investigated, and nobody here is really qualified to put together the pieces because we lack the expert knowledge. I'll add that even if we can assesses individual irregularities, it's mostly pointless, because it's not about the individual cases, it's about the overall pattern. And that the point of investigating those red flags is twofold: One, two ensure election integrity. And two, to prove to the public that election integrity is taken seriously. Both the facade and the reality are important. The people denying there's a problem and saying it's a threat to democracy to challenge the results are the threat, because if we don't look into those issues people will lose faith in the machinery of democracy, which can't function without that belief.

I know for a fact that standard governmental ethics training includes the very simple catechism that "If it looks improper, it IS improper", which when unpacked means that it doesn't matter if it is completely legitimate and above board, its still a violation of ethics.  The example used was (as I recall): If you are in charge of purchasing something, and you decide to purchase said item from a vendor. If then, after decision has been made, said Vendor gives you tickets to the Lakers game (or buys you a fancy lunch, or whatever), it LOOKS like you were bribed, even though you'd already made the decision before hand, and you could/would be prosecuted as if you had, in fact, been bribed.

Not a lawyer, but I have always suspected this was on legally shaky ground, but nevertheless have agreed that it is a sound principle.  Put it in the same catagory as 'Doth protest too much' and other such elements of 'shady as fuck' indicators.

Simply put: There are so many indicators (not proof) that this election has been tampered with that the BIDEN campaign should be calling for an audit, simply to clear their own name, or else seventy million voters will simply never believe that they election wasn't stolen from them.  What is so very fascinating about all this is how people are treating the calls for investigations as somehow improper.   In the long view it doesn't matter who won if no one trusts the process anymore. 

[oggsmash]

The points I made is that there are a lot of reported red flags. Those red flags must be investigated, and nobody here is really qualified to put together the pieces because we lack the expert knowledge. I'll add that even if we can assesses individual irregularities, it's mostly pointless, because it's not about the individual cases, it's about the overall pattern. And that the point of investigating those red flags is twofold: One, two ensure election integrity. And two, to prove to the public that election integrity is taken seriously. Both the facade and the reality are important. The people denying there's a problem and saying it's a threat to democracy to challenge the results are the threat, because if we don't look into those issues people will lose faith in the machinery of democracy, which can't function without that belief.

I know for a fact that standard governmental ethics training includes the very simple catechism that "If it looks improper, it IS improper", which when unpacked means that it doesn't matter if it is completely legitimate and above board, its still a violation of ethics.  The example used was (as I recall): If you are in charge of purchasing something, and you decide to purchase said item from a vendor. If then, after decision has been made, said Vendor gives you tickets to the Lakers game (or buys you a fancy lunch, or whatever), it LOOKS like you were bribed, even though you'd already made the decision before hand, and you could/would be prosecuted as if you had, in fact, been bribed.

Not a lawyer, but I have always suspected this was on legally shaky ground, but nevertheless have agreed that it is a sound principle.  Put it in the same catagory as 'Doth protest too much' and other such elements of 'shady as fuck' indicators.

Simply put: There are so many indicators (not proof) that this election has been tampered with that the BIDEN campaign should be calling for an audit, simply to clear their own name, or else seventy million voters will simply never believe that they election wasn't stolen from them.  What is so very fascinating about all this is how people are treating the calls for investigations as somehow improper.   In the long view it doesn't matter who won if no one trusts the process anymore.

The Rubicon is already crossed on that one IMO.

[Brad]

  Well Winson, sometimes 2+2 is 5.  Sometimes it is 3.  We are trying so very hard to help you Winston. Please keep trying.  It is so very hard to become sane.

See, Mistwell pretends he's Winston, when actually he's O'Brien. It's all so tiresome.

EDIT: Sorry, gonna have to try harder than that, shill: https://thepostmillennial.com/project-veritasproject-veritas-releases-recorded-coercing-of-usps-whistleblower-during-federal-interrogation

[Mistwell]

  Well Winson, sometimes 2+2 is 5.  Sometimes it is 3.  We are trying so very hard to help you Winston. Please keep trying.  It is so very hard to become sane.

See, Mistwell pretends he's Winston, when actually he's O'Brien. It's all so tiresome.

EDIT: Sorry, gonna have to try harder than that, shill: https://thepostmillennial.com/project-veritasproject-veritas-releases-recorded-coercing-of-usps-whistleblower-during-federal-interrogation

Yes Brad, same recording. Same one where he says he recants. HE made the recording Brad. Everything I posted above is from the recording HE made.

It's done dude. The guy was lying. We know that now. You're stuck with "was he lying initially, or lying during the interview with investigators, or lying in the video he made after the interview" now. ONE of those times he has to be lying, by definition. Because his statements in the interview are mutually exclusive with his initial video and the video he made afterwards. So you tell me, which one was he lying in? The part where he says if he stands by his prior statement "At this point? No." That has to be a lie for your worldview to be correct. Nobody forced him to say that. That's not coercion, to ask if you stand by your prior claim. He could have said, "Yes I still stand by it" but chose not to.

[EOTB]

"Even if there is some minor fraud in the case against the election's integrity, is is not widespread enough to affect the validity of the case against the election's integrity"

(No, this doesn't mean I agree with Mistwell on this particular particular whistleblower)

[Mercurius]

How are you still supporting this guy? He's so obviously lying it's not even funny anymore.  Well, it's still a bit funny I suppose. And Project Veritas is so obviously shitheads in this as well, just like they were caught lying just a couple of weeks ago. How are you still being taken in by all of this?

  Well Winson, sometimes 2+2 is 5.  Sometimes it is 3.  We are trying so very hard to help you Winston. Please keep trying.  It is so very hard to become sane.

Like clockwork. The wacko conspiracy narrative will be supported, no matter what. Even Fox News isn't taking Trump's BS seriously, but of course now Fox is "lamestream media" to Trumptards.

Confirmation bias really has no limits.

Meanwhile, Trump is duping his followers, and taking tons of their raising money in the process for whatever media venture he plans next. Can't wait to watch the Trump News Network for shits and giggles.