2020 Election Commentary

[jeff37923]

Fap fap fap

You are full of more shit than a Christmas turkey.

Your kink is not OK.

[Jaeger]

...
You believe that the only possibility is that just one side is being dishonest. You also believe that the only possibility is that it is Biden's side that is being dishonest.

I reject your first premise, which makes the second premise moot. I also reject your "Any rational person" bullshit, because rational people can and will disagree with your point.

Says the man who refuses to consider any evidence of fraud.

None of your arguments refute any evidence of fraud given, because you do not know enough about the evidence presented to give a  counterargument based on logic, reason, and factual information.

You rely solely on rhetorical and ad-hominin attacks, with baseless accusations that none of the evidence is real, Trump is lying, etc..

You are willingly supporting the lie.

[VisionStorm]

I also reject your "Any rational person" bullshit, because rational people can and will disagree with your point.

I agree.

Even rational people, like Sam Harris, can turn into demented drooling idiots on some issues. That doesn't mean that they can't be wrong in those issues, though, it just means that even rational people are susceptible to personal bias and dementia.

But they're still wrong.

[EOTB]

Pointing out that these states own responses to the lawsuit shred the "but the poll books" defense.  A defense resting on the fact a system is in place, that only coordinated fraud could upend the system, and that it's preposterous to believe the fraud necessary is possible, is a faith-based defense

[HappyDaze]

Fap fap fap

You are full of more shit than a Christmas turkey.

Your kink is not OK.

Oh, poor jeffy. You haven't had enough attention lately, have you, dear?

[HappyDaze]

...
You believe that the only possibility is that just one side is being dishonest. You also believe that the only possibility is that it is Biden's side that is being dishonest.

I reject your first premise, which makes the second premise moot. I also reject your "Any rational person" bullshit, because rational people can and will disagree with your point.

Says the man who refuses to consider any evidence of fraud.

None of your arguments refute any evidence of fraud given, because you do not know enough about the evidence presented to give a  counterargument based on logic, reason, and factual information.

You rely solely on rhetorical and ad-hominin attacks, with baseless accusations that none of the evidence is real, Trump is lying, etc..

You are willingly supporting the lie.

Nice narrative you got there. Be a shame if something happened to it...

[Shasarak]

Baby Shark

Do do dodo do do.

[Shasarak]

That is the definition of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Its worse then that Visionstorm:  Trump owes money on his real estate!

Worst President Evar

[jhkim]

They are terrified because they know what they did.

And they know that consequences will follow if they do not force Trump out.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163493/20201211095822921_TX-v-State-LeaveReply-2020-12-11.pdf

Texas doesn't hesitate to shoot right back at the assertions made by the four states about its claims.

Any rational person who looks at the evidence given knows shenanigans went down, and at a minimum every closely contested state should have had a complete forensic audit done of their election results.

OK, so there are a couple of claims that you quoted, all new to this forum discussion, at least. (1) Dr. Cicchetti's "one in a quadrillion" claim; (2) Wayne County Michigan 174,384 ballots; and (3) Georgia signature checks.

(1) Dr. Chichetti's claims are discussed in this Reason.com article (generally a libertarian outlet), which has a more detailed breakdown of his statements. I quote the conclusion below.

https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/09/more-on-statistical-stupidity-at-scotus/

That, believe it or not, is it.  (A) If the 2020 voting population had precisely the same party preferences as the 2016 voting population, Biden could not possibly have won; and (B) if the mail-in and in-person voters had precisely the same party preferences, Biden could not possibly have won.

Wow! Man bites dog!!  Who would have believed it!!  If the 2020 voting population had the same Repub/Dem split as it had in 2016, Trump must have won!! If mail-in voters had the same preferences as in-person voters, Trump must have won!! And if my aunt had four wheels, she'd be a motorcar!!

Dr. Cicchetti, in other words, has falsified two hypotheses that nobody in his/her right mind could possibly have believed might actually be true. Garbage in, garbage out.

I would remind Dr. Cicchetti—and, more importantly, Texas AG Paxton—that we periodically conduct "elections" precisely because voter preferences may change over time, and some people who voted for the Democratic candidate in one election might choose the Republican in the next, or vice versa. Were this not the case, I suppose we'd still have a Federalist as Chief Executive.

(2) The claim about Wayne County Michigan seems to be based on taking all absent voter ballots and claiming that they are fraudulent. I don't know the source for their number of 174,384 -- but it exactly matches the number of mailed absent voter ballots in the Detroit count.

https://detroitmi.gov/sites/detroitmi.localhost/files/2020-11/November%202020%20Election%20Summary%20Report%20Signed%20Copy.pdf

It claims that all these ballots can't be matched to a registered voter, which may be technically true in the sense that a ballot received through the mail has less physical verification - only signature. But the demand is inconsistent, since the lawsuit isn't seeking to reject all absentee ballots in any other county. If these votes were fraudulent, then it would mean that Detroit had a turnout of only 16% of registered voters! Even including all the mailed ballots, at 50% Detroit had the *lowest* turnout compared to all the other Michigan counties.

(3) I don't have any information about the Georgia signature checking at this time. I'll check on that later.


I'd be interested in rational discussion of these points.

[Jaeger]

...
Nice narrative you got there. Be a shame if something happened to it...

In your review of the evidence presented, what leads you to believe that the people who signed the 1,000+ signed affidavits alleging election improprieties of all kinds are lying.

...

(3) I don't have any information about the Georgia signature checking at this time. I'll check on that later.
...

This is what Trump has continually asked for; An audit where they do signature matching to verify the ballots.

This is a straightforward way to verify whether the claims made in the lawsuit are true or not.

But the powers that be in Georgia have continually refused to do so.

[oggsmash]

...
Nice narrative you got there. Be a shame if something happened to it...

In your review of the evidence presented, what leads you to believe that the people who signed the 1,000+ signed affidavits alleging election improprieties of all kinds are lying.

In other news I saw that Tulsi Gabbard has outed herself as transphobic after introducing a bill that supports the alt-right idea that biological males should not be able to compete in sports against biological females in women's sports. 

[jhkim]

In your review of the evidence presented, what leads you to believe that the people who signed the 1,000+ signed affidavits alleging election improprieties of all kinds are lying.

I can't know for sure that they are lying - but conversely, I can't know for sure that they're telling the truth. The issue is - how credible are they compared to the officials they are testifying against? I've done a sampling of some of the most prominent witness claims.

1) Navid Keshavarz-Nia was presented as an expert witness, but he cites a non-existent county as one of his examples, which causes me to doubt his other examples.

2) Richard Hopkins has gone back and forth on his original testimony. When questioned by investigators, he weakened all his claims, then went back on his claims. He has not gone forward with a lawsuit as far as I know. Other postal workers showed evidence conflicting his claims,

3) From watching the testimony of Melissa Carone, her specific claims did not make sense - such as about the 120% turnout, zero registered voters, and poll books off by tens of thousands. Those claims don't match with the public record. The previous judge and the state representatives did not find her credible.

4) Thomas McInerny claimed that 5 special forces soldiers were killed in a raid on a CIA-run server farm in Germany. That claim is quite hard to believe, and has not been backed by anyone else in the military, which it presumably should be.


From my sampling based on who people in this thread have cited, I think there are reasons to doubt that they are all perfectly truthful. As for the others, I have seen reference to at most a few dozen affidavits, not 1000+, and almost all of them are making very different specific claims. None that I have seen have any corroboration -- other witnesses or physical evidence to back them up.

(3) I don't have any information about the Georgia signature checking at this time. I'll check on that later.

This is what Trump has continually asked for; An audit where they do signature matching to verify the ballots.

This is a straightforward way to verify whether the claims made in the lawsuit are true or not.

But the powers that be in Georgia have continually refused to do so.

That's proof that the Georgia Republicans are pissed at Trump, but not proof of guilt. After being subjected to a ton of allegations, harassment, and death threats (ref), it seems to me that they are not feeling warm and friendly towards the people attacking them.

They have gone through two full recounts and answered a ton of questions and accusations both in court and in the media. The signatures were checked in the election twice (once for ballot request and once on the ballot itself) and the process examined.

If I were in their shoes, I'd be pretty damn pissed. Is it possible that they're lying and covering up? Sure, anything is possible. But their being pissed isn't evidence of that.

[oggsmash]

  It doesnt matter anymore.  The whole thing is going to burn unless the doddering fool who breaks his foot chasing his dog naked doesnt get us into a hot war with some small nation post haste after getting sworn in.  I would expect a syria sponsored terror attack sometime in late 2021.   Because they hate democracy and freedom of course. 

[Shasarak]

  It doesnt matter anymore.  The whole thing is going to burn unless the doddering fool who breaks his foot chasing his dog naked doesnt get us into a hot war with some small nation post haste after getting sworn in.  I would expect a syria sponsored terror attack sometime in late 2021.   Because they hate democracy and freedom of course.

And if he does not do when the CCP wants then his dog will come back and break the other foot.

[oggsmash]

  It doesnt matter anymore.  The whole thing is going to burn unless the doddering fool who breaks his foot chasing his dog naked doesnt get us into a hot war with some small nation post haste after getting sworn in.  I would expect a syria sponsored terror attack sometime in late 2021.   Because they hate democracy and freedom of course.

And if he does not do when the CCP wants then his dog will come back and break the other foot.

I think the CCP method involves a honey pot, not so much a leg breaker.  They always said get more flies with honey, and Shartwell is proving that out.