Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)

[Agema]

Everyone, no matter the winner or the loser, should be completely convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the election was secure and fair.

This is impossible.

The core requirement of it is that everyone knows the facts and wants to believe them. Unfortunately, this is a world where there are anti-vaxxers, horoscopes, healing crystals and homeopathy, people who believe the moon landing was a fake, flat earthers, that 9/11 was a CIA (/Mossad) plot, that a secret ruler of the world lives in Denver airport, that we should go back to the gold standard. People can't tell you what the national median wage is, how many immigrants are in the country, they don't know the laws and sure as hell how the government works in any useful depth.

The supposed crisis of faith in the US elections does not derive from verifiable facts about how reliable the election was. It is the product of an orchestrated campaign to sow doubt in the reliability of the election, on the back of a general decline in trust in US institutions and the political process. It does not matter what measures you put in place to make an election more secure, if one party decides to aggressively argue that the election is fraudulent, tens of millions of Americans will believe them.

And when we look for proof of this, we need look no further than you. Your belief in fraud is in defiance of any reasonable evidence presented.

 

[Houseman]

This is impossible.

I bet the people in Afghanistan were completely convinced, as they lined up to vote with their national ID card and their fingerprint, flanked by lines of armed US soldiers.

It is the product of an orchestrated campaign to sow doubt in the reliability of the election

I already posted a bunch of sources by people from a pre-covid world saying "voting by mail is unsecure and ripe for fraud", and suddenly everyone is saying "voting by mail is safe and secure". So what changed? Was it an orchestrated campaign to lie to the public? Or did voting by mail suddenly get more secure?


Also:

 

[Agema]

Why do you believe that the republican workers and poll watchers are lying, exaggerating, and distorting?
Because they're republicans?

Okay, answer me this. Do you believe that memetastic blonde woman who slurred her way through a hearing was a reliable witness?

And let's just help you answer here: she claimed in that hearing that she had to close her social media because of abuse, yet posted to Twitter and Facebook afterwards. When she made wild accusations of the poll books being doctored, what evidence and personal observation did she have to back that up?

1) How can a hearing "fail"?
2) One of the senators/congressmen, Lawful Evil in the meme, made a very similar point. "Why should we believe you when your team has 30,40,50, whatever the number was, failed lawsuits? Guiliani's response was "We only have 3".

Trump and team have raised around 50 lawsuits. About a dozen are yet to be heard, and over 30 have either been dropped or rejected. All dropped or rejected can be classified as failures, quite obviously.

 

[Adam Jensen]

OAN

Imagine thinking that OAN is a credible source of information.

 

[Agema]

Also:

You do realise that's not true, right?

I do not for the life of me understand why you argue the MSM is unreliable, yet treat random Twitterati as gospel truth.

 

[Houseman]

And let's just help you answer here: she claimed in that hearing that she had to close her social media because of abuse, yet posted to Twitter and Facebook afterwards. When she made wild accusations of the poll books being doctored, what evidence and personal observation did she have to back that up?

What she writes in her affidavit and what she says in the heat of the moment, on national television, in front of an unofficial (as in not a courtroom) cross-examination by House Reps, may be two different things, and that's okay.

So yes, as far as her affidavit goes. What she says outside of that is not under penalty of perjury.

Trump and team have raised around 50 lawsuits.

Rudy would know, and he said the answer, at the time, was 3.
You and he must have different definitions of who "Trumps Team" consists of.

You do realise that's not true, right?

Why do you think that?

 

[Houseman]

Preempting your answer to "why do you think that?"


This says 11% of the ballots had signatures that could not be verified.

The text says "she could not testify that the signature on the envelope/affidavit matched the signature on file"

That doesn't strictly mean "does not match", I'll agree, but that isn't enough to call this completely untrue.

 

[Kwak]

This is about the worst attempt at a "no, you" I've seen. Oh, and let's not forget that he basically just admitted that they are going for the legislative approach because the legal (as in, the legal system) approach isn't working.

Rudy Giuliani Says 'We Don't Need Courts' in Election Fight

"The United States Constitution gives sole power to the state legislature to decide presidential elections," the president's attorney said on Sean Hannity's show Friday night.

www.newsweek.com

It doesn't matter what the legal system deems evidence - the whole point is to talk loudly and establish a completely parallel reality that can be latched on to by enough of the population to insist their interpretation is the one that really matters.
They are basically bypassing the whole system at this point to create their own reality. Get enough voices screaming and truth is irrelevant.

 

[SilentPony]

Preempting your answer to "why do you think that?"


This says 11% of the ballots had signatures that could not be verified.

The text says "she could not testify that the signature on the envelope/affidavit matched the signature on file"

That doesn't strictly mean "does not match", I'll agree, but that isn't enough to call this completely untrue.

Oh man of the past, for whom reading comprehension is tomorrow's lesson, fear not! We of the future have learned to read entire sentences and paragraphs, noting all the information contained within, not just to take the first half of once sentence and use that as proof of our baseless claims. As I am a good, kind man from the future I will my best to accommodate your handicap and finish your work.

"Defendants’ expert testified that 11 of the 100 envelopes were inconclusive, mostly because there were insufficient specimens to which to compare them. He too found no sign of forgery or simulation, and found no basis for rejecting any of the signatures.

These ballots were admitted at trial and the Court heard testimony about them and reviewed them. None of them shows an abuse of discretion on the part of the reviewer. Every one of them listed a phone number that matched a phone number already on file, either through voter registration records or from a prior ballot. The evidence does not show that these affidavits are fraudulent, or that someone other than the voter signed them. There is no evidence that the manner in which signatures were reviewed was designed to benefit one candidate or another, or that there was any misconduct, impropriety, or violation of Arizona law with respect to the review of mail-in ballots."

I do admit it is tough reading 7 entire sentences, but with dedication and determination you can advance to a 2nd grade level of reading proficiency. Keep at it man of the past!

 

[Houseman]

Yep, none of that contradicts with what I said.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Arizona that agreed that an error in 100 was worth examining more ballots, and upon examining 1500 ballots, they found 9 clerical errors split between Trump and Biden that if scaled to all the votes in Arizona, would barely shift the vote total by 100 votes?

 

[Houseman]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Arizona that agreed that an error in 100 was worth examining more ballots, and upon examining 1500 ballots, they found 9 clerical errors split between Trump and Biden that if scaled to all the votes in Arizona, would barely shift the vote total by 100 votes?

Yeah, I don't know where this fits in the timeline of things. But the 100 ballots was only duplicated ballots, so signatures are irrelevant there

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Yeah, I don't know where this fits in the timeline of things. But the 100 ballots was only duplicated ballots, so signatures are irrelevant there

Neat, but that's not the important part. It's the 1500 audited ballots. With only 9 errors. That's less than a 1% error rate over all this hoopla and absolutely expected. Like everything else being brought up, absolutely expected and insignificant.

 

[Kwak]

Oh man of the past, for whom reading comprehension is tomorrow's lesson, fear not!

I enjoy your commitment to this bit. Thank you.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

Arizona Legislature 'cannot and will not' overturn election, Republican House speaker says

House Speaker Rusty Bowers, R-Mesa, gave a forceful rebuke to Republican lawmakers who want the Legislature to give Arizona's electoral votes to Trump

www.azcentral.com

"As a conservative Republican, I don’t like the results of the presidential election," Bowers said in a prepared statement. "I voted for President Trump and worked hard to reelect him. But I cannot and will not entertain a suggestion that we violate current law to change the outcome of a certified election."

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Arizona Legislature 'cannot and will not' overturn election, Republican House speaker says

House Speaker Rusty Bowers, R-Mesa, gave a forceful rebuke to Republican lawmakers who want the Legislature to give Arizona's electoral votes to Trump

www.azcentral.com

Are you implying the expert research by people like this may have not panned out?

 

[Kwak]

Are you implying the expert research by people like this ...

Surely that is satire.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Surely that is satire.

This is the man who is probably Q, of Qanon fame, and according to I think it was Houseman, reputable source on election interference rules.

 

[bluegate]

What she writes in her affidavit and what she says in the heat of the moment, on national television, in front of an unofficial (as in not a courtroom) cross-examination by House Reps, may be two different things, and that's okay.

So yes, as far as her affidavit goes. What she says outside of that is not under penalty of perjury.

These affidavits keep getting brought up as if we're living an episode of Law and Order, but are they notarized? Are they even being admitted as evidence in cases where there are actual authorities that are enforcing said penalty of perjury?

Going on TV and showing a stack of papers is one thing, going on TV and screeching that you have an affidavit is one thing, actually notarizing them and having them scrutinized by people of authority is a whole other thing.

Do us all a favour and never bring up affidavits again unless they're used in a legitimate court setting and are actually being tested.

"But muhh affidavit!"

The new cries from desperate Trumpists.

 

[Houseman]

These affidavits keep getting brought up as if we're living an episode of Law and Order, but are they notarized?

Yep, look for yourself:

Are they even being admitted as evidence in cases where there are actual authorities that are enforcing said penalty of perjury?

Yes, and you can see the case in the link above.