LIVE COVERAGE of Rally for President Trump in DC! 01/06/2021

[moonsweeper]

Did anyplace that has a 'legal requirement to allow observation during vote tabulating' suspend their counting and tell said legal observers that the count would begin again at a specific time...then start the tabulating earlier than stated without informing said observers? 

I don't remember...maybe I should Google it or something...

So you're talking about the State Farm Arena video in Fulton County, Georgia. Someone did put narration onto a security video making that claim -- but there has not been any testimony from the Republican legal observers to that effect. i.e. The observers who were supposedly lied to have not backed up this claim. If one claims that "Well, the Republican observers were corrupted - that's why they're not testifying" -- but if so, what good would they have done as observers in the first place?

The video narration also claimed that the workers started taking ballots out of surreptitious suitcases -- but investigators questioned the workers and looked over the tapes, and confirmed that those were the official ballot containers, and were openly placed there earlier in the day in front of observers (as shown on camera).

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-mystery-ballots-under-table-investigator-affidavit

I don't know about the video...never watched it.
I also didn't say anything about pulling out cases of fake ballots. 
I specifically said exactly what I meant to say...

Your claim, as I understand it, is that election officials lied to the legal observers. What is your evidence of that?

https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/1323846118208376834
...evidently vote counters were sent home at 10:30 by someone acting in an 'official capacity'

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20420331/mitchell-harrison-affidavit.pdf
...and apparently legal observers saw and heard someone in an 'official capacity' tell the counters to go home and not come back until 8:30 AM...

Unless you think a 'government agent acting in an official capacity' giving an order (with you actually present as an interested 3rd party) isn't informing you of said order.

good luck defending yourself with that...

[jhkim]

Your claim, as I understand it, is that election officials lied to the legal observers. What is your evidence of that?

https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/1323846118208376834
...evidently vote counters were sent home at 10:30 by someone acting in an 'official capacity'

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20420331/mitchell-harrison-affidavit.pdf
...and apparently legal observers saw and heard someone in an 'official capacity' tell the counters to go home and not come back until 8:30 AM...

Unless you think a 'government agent acting in an official capacity' giving an order (with you actually present as an interested 3rd party) isn't informing you of said order.

Thanks for the affidavit link. I hadn't seen the affidavit text before - only summaries. For reference, I also checked the affidavit of the other observer, Michelle Branton, that I found based on yours.

https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/BrantonAffidavit.pdf

Still, this is consistent with the fact checks that I read. Their testimony is that they overheard an unnamed woman telling workers to go home, and so they left. But (1) they both knew that there were ballot workers still there at the site and clearly say so, and (2) they don't attest to being told the work timetable directly, only that they overheard that order by the unnamed woman to workers.

The account I read from investigators is that most of the workers went home (the envelope openers), but the counters stayed and continued to process. It's possible that the observers misinterpreted the overheard command - thinking that it meant that all work was stopped, when it was only directed at some of the workers but not all.

It comes down to that one overheard command and who it was being said to. The testimony doesn't rule that out, in my opinion. Of course, it could be possible that the command was a ruse purely to deceive the Republican observers, and the workers heard it but were in on the secret plan. But I don't think the testimony clearly distinguishes.

[moonsweeper]

...except the argument that they 'misread' the intention doesn't fly when combined with the fact that Waller informed ABC news that the counting at that location was stopped at 10:30...which means the 'supervisor' apparently did, in fact, issue instructions for everyone to go home and come back for later counting.

Even more so, since the witnesses were questioning Waller (who was present at the location in question during the order) about the number of ballots that were left to count...a question she specifically refused to answer...

...or are you just gonna fall back on the 'maybe ABC misinterpreted what they heard' defense...or maybe Waller 'misunderstood' what the orders were and she just made a misstatement to the media...

[EOTB]

Unless you establish beforehand what is the necessary threshold of evidence the skeptic agrees will change their held view, skeptics will play "bring me a rock" with you all the live-long day

[moonsweeper]

Unless you establish beforehand what is the necessary threshold of evidence the skeptic agrees will change their held view, skeptics will play "bring me a rock" with you all the live-long day

Yeah, but I'm doing it because there might be people looking who are actually interested in evidence and capable of critical thought.  That way they see some data without all of the attached zealotry.  If I can convince one person to at least 'question authority' no matter who is in charge, then I've at least accomplished something useful with my time.     

[HappyDaze]

I've at least accomplished something useful with my time.     

Consider where you're posting. Nothing useful will come of this.

[moonsweeper]

I've at least accomplished something useful with my time.     

Consider where you're posting. Nothing useful will come of this.

Maybe, maybe not...but a big part of 'questioning authority' is to do your own research and analysis...and if anyone decides to do that based on something I post, then I have done something useful...whether I realize it or not.

If all you want to do is watch MSNBC, Fox, or CNN or else read WaPo, NYT, and Breitbart, then I don't have much to offer...but there are some people who aren't sheep.

You fail to see that because you divide people into categories based on some misguided perception of politics.

If you can't fit me into one of your boxes maybe you should look at acquiring some new boxes.

[HappyDaze]

You fail to see that because you divide people into categories based on some misguided perception of politics.

If you can't fit me into one of your boxes maybe you should look at acquiring some new boxes.

  That's a load of shit.

What are those categories I divide people into? What boxes am I trying to fit you into?

[EOTB]

Unless you establish beforehand what is the necessary threshold of evidence the skeptic agrees will change their held view, skeptics will play "bring me a rock" with you all the live-long day

Yeah, but I'm doing it because there might be people looking who are actually interested in evidence and capable of critical thought.  That way they see some data without all of the attached zealotry.  If I can convince one person to at least 'question authority' no matter who is in charge, then I've at least accomplished something useful with my time.     

Fair

[EOTB]

double post

[moonsweeper]

You fail to see that because you divide people into categories based on some misguided perception of politics.

If you can't fit me into one of your boxes maybe you should look at acquiring some new boxes.

  That's a load of shit.

What are those categories I divide people into? What boxes am I trying to fit you into?

Apparently, one of your 'dangerously guilty of wrongthink' boxes since you felt compelled to inform me that I was wasting my time by posting here...by yourself posting here to inform me of that.

I find it interesting that you chose to respond not to the actual discussion between myself and jhkim but instead felt compelled to comment when I explained that my goal was to get people to think for themselves...

[Pat]

Apparently, one of your 'dangerously guilty of wrongthink' boxes since you felt compelled to inform me that I was wasting my time by posting here...by yourself posting here to inform me of that.

I find it interesting that you chose to respond not to the actual discussion between myself and jhkim but instead felt compelled to comment when I explained that my goal was to get people to think for themselves...

HappyDaze is capable of thought, but has given up on most discussions on this board and deliberately trolls most of the time instead. Everything you just said is logical in that context.

[HappyDaze]

You fail to see that because you divide people into categories based on some misguided perception of politics.

If you can't fit me into one of your boxes maybe you should look at acquiring some new boxes.

  That's a load of shit.

What are those categories I divide people into? What boxes am I trying to fit you into?

Apparently, one of your 'dangerously guilty of wrongthink' boxes since you felt compelled to inform me that I was wasting my time by posting here...by yourself posting here to inform me of that.

I find it interesting that you chose to respond not to the actual discussion between myself and jhkim but instead felt compelled to comment when I explained that my goal was to get people to think for themselves...

I don't think you're "dangerously guilty of wrongthink" (I save that distinction for the assholes promoting violence) but I do think everything on this board is essentially a waste of time. I'm OK with wasting my time and that of others too so long as they want to play. I was just pointing out that this is probably a poor venue for your life changing efforts, but so long as you're OK with wasting your time, be my guest.

[Mistwell]

AOC wasn't just in another building (that was never breached), she claimed she thought pro-Trump attackers were breaking into her office an hour before anyone even breached the Capitol (the other building).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=275&v=prlmJQAf1ns

Edit: Fixed link.

typical click-bait bullshit youtube link.

There is no proof she is "lying" in any of that. First there is an allegation she got the time of day wrong. OK, so? Not a lie, she might just be wrong. But then it turns out what she heard was a captial police office banging on her door. Which...they were doing, well before the capitol was breached. And not just in the capitol, the capitol police were in her building gathering congresspeople there as well, again before the capitol was breached. So...her account there is not a lie at all.

this douchbag click-baiter who is rooking you for that sweet youtube ad dollars is making it seem like AOC could not have heard a police officer bang on her door and think it was rioters banging on her door earlier than the rioters were actually banging on the capitol door - as if she couldn't have mistaken a cop for a rioter banging in her door, or as if she couldn't have feared them breaking into her office building when they had not?

And then he goes on to claim nobody could have possibly thought they would try to break in before they tried to break in? No. Complete bullshit. Just because the capitol police and secret service were ill prepared for what happened does not mean people like AOC were not already fearing it would happen. Us gamers right here on this message board thought it might happen before it did for fuck's sake! Naw, this youtuber is a total lying fucker.

he's a douchebag, and you should not be following that douchebags clickbait videos.

She claimed she was in the Capitol building with the protesters, but she wasn't. She was in her office across the street.

Not only is that not what she claimed, that's also not what the video you posted is even about.

She gave a specific time when she claimed she started fearing for her life. Except that time was an hour before the protesters passed the police line, and long, long before they even started evacuating people from the Capitol (the building across the street).

Incorrect and ALSO not what the video you posted claimes.

The video you posted claims the rioters BROKE INTO the capital an hour later. But prior to that, capital police were already moving congrespeople and staff out of buildings. She says she feared for her life WHEN A POLICE OFFER BANGED ON HER DOOR because she THOUGHT IT WAS A RIOTER. Which is perfectly reasonable.

She said she was evacuated because protesters were in the building. She wasn't.

She said she THOUGHT THEY WERE in the building but then later realized it was the police. She thought that because there were very angry rioters in the square already, it was fucking obvious to everyone that they wanted in, it was totally rational for her to think they had gotten in an hour before they had, and there is nothing "lying" about saying "I thought they had gotten in" before they had because you heard banging on your door.

I don't know what is worse - that you promote a bullshit video, or that you don't even know what's in the video you promoted.

[Pat]

She claimed she was in the Capitol building with the protesters, but she wasn't. She was in her office across the street.

Not only is that not what she claimed, that's also not what the video you posted is even about.

She gave a specific time when she claimed she started fearing for her life. Except that time was an hour before the protesters passed the police line, and long, long before they even started evacuating people from the Capitol (the building across the street).

Incorrect and ALSO not what the video you posted claimes.

The video you posted claims the rioters BROKE INTO the capital an hour later. But prior to that, capital police were already moving congrespeople and staff out of buildings. She says she feared for her life WHEN A POLICE OFFER BANGED ON HER DOOR because she THOUGHT IT WAS A RIOTER. Which is perfectly reasonable.

She said she was evacuated because protesters were in the building. She wasn't.

She said she THOUGHT THEY WERE in the building but then later realized it was the police. She thought that because there were very angry rioters in the square already, it was fucking obvious to everyone that they wanted in, it was totally rational for her to think they had gotten in an hour before they had, and there is nothing "lying" about saying "I thought they had gotten in" before they had because you heard banging on your door.

I don't know what is worse - that you promote a bullshit video, or that you don't even know what's in the video you promoted.

Did I cite that video in the post you just replied to? No, I did not. I cited it several posts ago, to back up a specific claim I made in that time. I did that because it was breaking news and hadn't been covered widely, at the time of my post. I picked Tim Pool's video, because it was the first source I was aware of that laid exactly what she said about the timing of events, and compared it to other sources (in this case, the NYT's timeline), and thus showed how her claims made no sense at all.

In the post you just replied to, I presented a complete summary of her many lies, instead of focusing on that one piece of breaking news. I didn't cite a specific source, because everything I said has since been widely covered. You can easily find sources backing up all my statements.

It's funny that you think you're rebutting my post by saying a video I didn't reference doesn't say something. And it's doubly funny, because the video literally about what you're saying it's not about (her lie about the timing), and it also specifically mentions other things you say it didn't mention (her being across the street instead of in the Capitol building, for instance).

You really seem obsessed with the sociopathic socialist and beanie boy. You might want to get help.