Wait, is she the same person as the "I saw food trucks, but they didn't have enough food" lady from the telly?
Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
- Status
Are you for real? POTUS is the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF and you want soldiers do the tabulation? Just being present at the polling station is unacceptable. You know literally nothing about how free elections look like.
No, it is not okay, because the credibility of a witness is a wider consideration of their general honesty and reliability than what they write on a statement. I'm sure her affidavit was written after consultation with lawyers, who potentially tidied it up. Her outburst in the hearing suggests she is prone to believing wild conspiracy theories, there is her obvious partisanship, and aggressively declaring to be true things she cannot reasonably ascertain. This context then has to be applied to her perception of events described in the affidavit.
So she's free to lie and distort without fear of repercussions to the hearing then? Okay.
Quite likely we do. Giuliani possibly means just cases overseen by him personally. I would include other stuff from his allies - there is very likely to be co-ordination where relevant.
1) "Inconclusive" is not the same as falsified. This sort of detail is important, and that's why I say exaggerate and distort with respect to the poll watchers, although it applies here too. This is a deliberate attempt by that Twitterato to make things seem worse than they really are. This is similar to "Ron" posting that video and very clearly intimating fraud on Twitter, but when challenged by the alleged journalist (whom he later asked to show him her breasts), retreats to a very strict interpretation of his affidavit. Likewise, Ron's other... 'interesting' posts on Twitter suggest he might not be the most reliable and unbiased observer.
2) As already pointed out, a wider selection of 2500 was examined and found errors which - if representative of the whole county - would have granted Trump an extra ~100 votes. In context, that's 100 out of over 2 million votes cast in the county (0.05%), which Trump lost by 45,000. That county represents about two-thirds of all the votes in the state, so that would suggest 150 extra votes for Trump in the state, and his state deficit is about 12,000. Thus the error here is far, far below the margin of victory.
Last edited:
I was never Trumpist. I never had any great desire to defend a man who's basically an average Democratic president. But when people pretend he's Hitler, they need a reality check. That being said, to those concerned, my low comment count lately is a combination of me being real life busy and these threads moving too freaking fast, and I don't feel like reading 7 pages of petty insults to get back up to speed every time I log on.
I don't know if you are aware of this but the army are really good at infiltration. If you're worried about sneaking, the last people you should leave in charge is the army (except maybe the CIA.) They would be way more effective at stealing elections covertly
Without meaning to derail this serious thread about important issues, but there's a fair few people claiming that the US military is losing those sorts of skills due to the nature of the wars they've been fighting for the last generation or more.
True, though as special forces are only a small part of the US military, the generalisation stands, I think. Apparently camouflage discipline is suffering as well, and possibly small unit tactics. Most certainly there's a lack of experience in having to deal with serious enemy artillery or air power.
So, this is based on the changing media treatment of mail-in ballots, rather than on any demonstrable evidence of mail-in ballots being insecure?
The only evidence that's been presented so far is people claiming things. Plaintiffs, poll-workers, media outlets. Opinion, nothing demonstrable. And, no, once again, nobody prevented that evidence being submitted to court.
Here's the audio;
Matthew Brann & Rudy Giuliani said:
The part of my post immediately following the part you quoted started with the words "such as", and gave two examples.
Breaking news: Apparently Rudy Giuliani and future Mrs. Ex-Rudy Giuliani gave even more testimony last night, oddly right around the time Trump was conceding the election in Georgia.
Im glad to see Ms. Ellis has been drying out a little
Im glad to see Ms. Ellis has been drying out a little
There will be a decline in skills (or perhaps practical application, theory may be in a better state) and experience under any circumstance if they are not exercised. Arguably, in that sense, even low intensity conflict is preferable to none at all.
On the other hand, hardly anyone else is getting experience of that sort of warfare either. Although that's a good thing, less war and all.
Ah, gotcha. I have some friends that wanted Trump to win, and boy were they going on about how Trump was going to win by suing the states and crap like that. I pointed out once that Trump is kinda a bad person and got something along the lines of this: "We support his beliefs, not the man himself." No matter what someone believes, if they can't make things happen or work well with others then they can't do much of anything besides piss people off now can they? I didn't want Hillary to win in 2016, but it wasn't like I wanted Trump to win. I feel like we haven't really had good choices for the election in a while.
Why, do you think that opens up an avenue for the vote to be manipulated? Are you afraid biased parties will tamper with the process and commit fraud?
That sounds awfully familiar to what I've been saying...
Well he doesn't seem to believe anything, except getting the crowd to like him. He didn't lock up Hilary, drain the swamp, or get Mexico to pay for the wall.
- Status