Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)

[Houseman]

According to that link, they say that Republican observers are not required to be there.

Even assuming that's true...
Why do you have any faith in the outcome of this election, where the rules allow having only one political party count votes, unsupervised?

Could you not imagine a scenario where that could go wrong?

Also the link says "nobody was told to go home", but we have an affidavit from a witness saying the opposite, so who are we to trust, a statement made under penalty of perjury, or one that isn't?

 

[Kwak]

Could you not imagine a scenario where that could go wrong?

I can imagine this scenario, therefore it must be true.
I don't know, feels like something's missing.
Like, objective proof of such a thing happening in the actual real world, not paranoid conspiracy rightwing fever-dreams.

 

[bluegate]

According to that link, they say that Republican observers are not required to be there.

Even assuming that's true...
Why do you have any faith in the outcome of this election, where the rules allow having only one political party count votes, unsupervised?

Could you not imagine a scenario where that could go wrong?

Also the link says "nobody was told to go home", but we have an affidavit from a witness saying the opposite, so who are we to trust, a statement made under penalty of perjury, or one that isn't?

Looking at these sham MAGA conventions they are throwing left and right, I have real trouble trusting that those affidavits are actually properly notarized.

It's easy to show a stack of papers on television or sit in a convention room and screech about having an affidavit and being right because of it, but how do they hold up in a legitimate setting?

 

[Houseman]

I can imagine this scenario, therefore it must be true.
I don't know, feels like something's missing.
Like, objective proof of such a thing happening in the actual real world, not paranoid conspiracy rightwing fever-dreams.

"You think we should put up a guard rail on these stairs? If somebody falls, they'll probably die."

"Nonsense, lets wait for somebody to actually die first, before we decide to waste money like some kind of paranoid conspiracy theorist"

One of the first rules of safety is "think about what could happen. Imagine the scenarios where people could get hurt. Then fix things until those scenarios are as impossible as possible."

This isn't something I made up:

Scenario Learning in Risk and Safety - SafetyRisk.net

Scenario Learning in Risk and Safety One of the best ways of learning safety is through scenarios. Scenarios are constructed to either replicate real situations to maximize perception of recognizable cues or, to enhance the imagination of possibilities. One of the greatest capabilities a safety...

safetyrisk.net

 

[Adam Jensen]

It was funny at first, then tragic and now it's just pathetic. It's over. There is no evidence. Just lies and manipulations. Learn to deal with it already.

 

[Iron]

It was funny at first, then tragic and now it's just pathetic. It's over. There is no evidence. Just lies and manipulations. Learn to deal with it already.

"Oh no a water-pipe burst, we got to evacuate the building"
*there was no water-pipe burst*
This ought to raise suspicion with anyone.

 

[Agema]

The relevant point was that these are numbers provided by the same machines, alleging that these machines are open to manipulation, IIRC.

If I can refresh you on your own statement (my emphasis):

Also on the subject of the "spikes", where all of a sudden there was a huge dump of ballots that lost Trump the lead in the middle of the night, the question was asked yesterday, "Couldn't this just be a large county submitting their results after having finally finished counting everything?"

The answer given during the hearing was "no"...

* * *

Yes, because I was talking about a black woman constantly being out of order at a hearing so it makes sense that the context be at a hearing.

I'm sorry, but that's about as feeble an excuse as it gets, and it shows.

 

[Agema]

Why do you have any faith in the outcome of this election, where the rules allow having only one political party count votes, unsupervised?

Political parties don't count the votes. Public employees/volunteers (who presumably vote for either or no party) do.

Could you not imagine a scenario where that could go wrong?

Sure, I can. I can also imagine a scenario where an asteroid crashes into the planet, or a scenario where a mad scientist brings dinosaurs back from the dead that escape into the North American environment, or that Trump is a Russian mole being blackmailed by Putin over a sex and urination tape from a Moscow hotel, or that an interdimensional rift opens and elves with magic powers try to conquer the world.

But you know what? When I judge reality, I prefer to use objective evidence rather than my imagination.

Also the link says "nobody was told to go home", but we have an affidavit from a witness saying the opposite, so who are we to trust, a statement made under penalty of perjury, or one that isn't?

Neither, because the flaws of subjective interpretation and memory are well-established concepts. That's a lot of what cross-examination is for, to test whether the witness's beliefs match up to other observable evidence, to test certainty, shake out potential errors or jog extra recollections. There is every chance the witness does not actually remember exactly what they were told, and/or mistook a suggestion as an instruction. Being mistaken is not perjury: perjury is deliberately saying something known to be false.

Next, as people are convicted of perjury, it proves people are willing to lie . So the argument that someone would not lie because they would go to jail is in fact remarkably weak. Lots of them do take that risk (and most of them probably calculate that they'll get away with it, and do).

As a side issue, it also begs the question that why did a Republican Party that was allegedly expecting massive fraud send in observers who were not aware of their fundamental rights to remain and watch any processing going on and challenge it at the time?

 

[Baffle]

I heard that drunk conspiracy theorist lady at the hearing is still talking even though they've turned the lights off and everyone's gone home. Just yammering away there in the dark.

 

[Silvanus]

It should be a partisan, adversarial process. That's what ballot "challengers" are there to do. That's why the law says that watchers from all major political parties must be present, overseeing the process. They're there to keep the other side honest, and vice versa.

If there are any doubts whatsoever, they should be cleared up, to the satisfaction of all parties, so that nobody can claim that fowl play was involved.

So if someone does something totally in line with procedure (like using a USB), and one party utterly misunderstands and alleges its illegal, we need to humour their misunderstanding and launch an investigation? Rather than... you know, pointing out that its not suspicious and they just made a mistake?

Do we investigate all non-suspicious behaviour, or only if some whacko makes shit up about it on Twitter?

 

[Thaluikhain]

I heard that drunk conspiracy theorist lady at the hearing is still talking even though they've turned the lights off and everyone's gone home. Just yammering away there in the dark.

If nobody is listening, how do anyone know? Suspicious, Trump must have won.

 

[Baffle]

If nobody is listening, how do anyone know? Suspicious, Trump must have won.

The janitor (voted three times) was saying it on Weibo.

 

[Agema]

If nobody is listening, how do anyone know? Suspicious, Trump must have won.

Well:

* it's impossible Biden could have got 7 million votes more than Trump, because it just is, okay?
* only the Democrats would cheat, because <indistinct mumble>.
* mail-in ballots may be fraudulent, so the USA needs voter ID at polling stations
* any old shit anyone says about fraud occurring is true, unless proven otherwise
* unproven fraud is undemocratic, but scrapping the vote and installing Trump by legislative fiat isn't

* * *

The first is an interesting point. The tactic right from the start was to create a situation where Trump was ahead and needed to be overtaken, because it could feed this shitshow - but it was all an artefact of the order votes were counted. If all the states hadn't released any figures until they'd basically finished (or were mathematically certain), this would never have built up a head of steam to support it. Everyone would look at a 4.3% popular vote margin, and just say "Well, that was that, then: 'grats, Biden". Instead, the Republicans got their hopes up way high by the lead and the scent of a stunning victory against the odds, then smashed and taken away - the psychological impact was huge, and on top of decades of diet of siege mentality, conspiracy theory and paranoia of course they leapt at the idea of fraud. And here they are, picking around the detritus of a heavy defeat, trying to tell themselves they didn't really lose.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The first is an interesting point. The tactic right from the start was to create a situation where Trump was ahead and needed to be overtaken, because it could feed this shitshow - but it was all an artefact of the order votes were counted. If all the states hadn't released any figures until they'd basically finished (or were mathematically certain), this would never have built up a head of steam to support it. Everyone would look at a 4.3% popular vote margin, and just say "Well, that was that, then: 'grats, Biden". Instead, the Republicans got their hopes up way high by the lead and the scent of a stunning victory against the odds, then smashed and taken away - the psychological impact was huge, and on top of decades of diet of siege mentality, conspiracy theory and paranoia of course they leapt at the idea of fraud. And here they are, picking around the detritus of a heavy defeat, trying to tell themselves they didn't really lose.

While there is certainly truth in that, there's plenty of Republican supporters that claim fraud at the best of times. Hell, the voter ID laws aimed at voter suppression require pretending that voter fraud could be an issue.

Though, yeah, really absurd this time, even if not unprecedented.

 

[Iron]

While there is certainly truth in that, there's plenty of Republican supporters that claim fraud at the best of times. Hell, the voter ID laws aimed at voter suppression require pretending that voter fraud could be an issue.

Though, yeah, really absurd this time, even if not unprecedented.

All those countries in red suppressing voters, such an undemocratic world.

 

[Satinavian]

All those countries in red suppressing voters, such an undemocratic world.
View attachment 1881

We already had this.

Some countries issue any voter a national ID that has to be used.

Others even make voting mandatory.



The only country i know where significant portions of eligible voters don't have an ID and people still push voter ID is the US.

 

[Iron]

We already had this.

Some countries issue any voter a national ID that has to be used.

Others even make voting mandatory.



The only country i know where significant portions of eligible voters don't have an ID and people still push voter ID is the US.

Yes and last time it ended with "evil protestants" being the reason for this injustice. Somehow whites are responsible for both - there not being a national id card, and the effort to enforce voter id laws. It's as if they are responsible for all of the ills of the world. *replaces whites with jews* why are you do antisemitic?

 

[Agema]

Yes and last time it ended with "evil protestants" being the reason for this injustice. Somehow whites are responsible for both - there not being a national id card, and the effort to enforce voter id laws. It's as if they are responsible for all of the ills of the world. *replaces whites with jews* why are you do antisemitic?

Well, the difference between Jews and white Protestants is that whilst both are accused of running the country, only white Protestants actually do. And one of the downsides of running everything is that you can suck up the blame for pretty much everything that the government does, even if some accusations are mutually contradictory.

 

[Iron]

Well, the difference between Jews and white Protestants is that whilst both are accused of running the country, only white Protestants actually do. And one of the downsides of running everything is that you can suck up the blame for pretty much everything that the government does, even if some accusations are mutually contradictory.

This is jarring for me, I hope you can understand.

 

[Houseman]

If I can refresh you on your own statement (my emphasis):


Houseman said:
Also on the subject of the "spikes", where all of a sudden there was a huge dump of ballots that lost Trump the lead in the middle of the night, the question was asked yesterday, "Couldn't this just be a large county submitting their results after having finally finished counting everything?"

The answer given during the hearing was "no"...

Yes, and then I went on to say "because the counties do not just update their results once they're finished. They update their counts continuously. That's how the NYT was reporting their numbers, they had a feed from a server. "

The part you cropped out was the relevant part. It's a continuously updated count from a machine, not someone submitting the new numbers by hand in arbitrary batches.

I'm sorry, but that's about as feeble an excuse as it gets, and it shows.

"context is for losers!"

Political parties don't count the votes. Public employees/volunteers (who presumably vote for either or no party) do.

That's not what we've been hearing from the testimony regarding TCF center. They would deliberately try to get republican poll watchers kicked out for trivial reasons, and when they succeeded, the whole place would cheer. That is in Lawful Good's testimony.

But you haven't been watching the hearings, so you wouldn't know anything about that.

But you know what? When I judge reality, I prefer to use objective evidence rather than my imagination.

From the link about safety above: "One of the greatest capabilities a safety person can have is a creative imagination."

But cool guys like yourself have no time for imagination, "imagination is for nerds who want to be safe and probably also wear eye protection on the off chance that something dangerous will fly into their eyes. Cool guys like me wait until I lose an eyeball!"

So if someone does something totally in line with procedure (like using a USB), and one party utterly misunderstands and alleges its illegal, we need to humour their misunderstanding and launch an investigation?

That would be great.