Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)

[crimson5pheonix]

When he says ‘based’ I’m assuming he means ‘biased’ or is this another linguistic somersault I’ve missed out on?

Indeed, it means good. In short, Tucker is having one of his populist moments where he says something that makes sense.

 

[Houseman]

In Pennsylvania it's law that you CANNOT throw out ballots due to signature matching.

And you don't see anything wrong with that?

 

[Mister Mumbler]

I'm reminded of that one ZP joke, you know, about the man who farts as a joke, but then he keeps on farting for a long time and is starting to get shit everywhere?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

And you don't see anything wrong with that?

Nope because signature matching doesn't fucking work. It's only throws away more good votes than it does bad votes (unless you wanna pay professions to do it). It's like if you use evidence in court and prove your case (that signature matching is bullshit), the court will rule in your favor.

 

[Houseman]

Nope because signature matching doesn't fucking work.

So how would you prevent fraud? How would you stop me from filling out a ballot meant for someone else?

And why would you require signatures in the first place?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

And you don't see anything wrong with that?

Nope, because I don't want a random poll worker to be able to throw out ballots on a whim because they think the signatures aren't similar enough.

Signatures change depending on what kind of pen is used, how quickly a person is writing, how much they care about the signature. They also just change over time I can tell you straight up that the signature on my driver's license doesn't match the signature I currently use. The signature on my driver's license is 15 years old, and I honestly don't think I could even reproduce it anymore because I haven't written in cursive in more than 10 years.

Throwing out votes due to "signatures not matching" would create the potential for more fraud than it would solve.

 

[Gordon_4]

Indeed, it means good. In short, Tucker is having one of his populist moments where he says something that makes sense.

What? How the fuck did that happen?

 

[Trunkage]

What? How the fuck did that happen?

Tucker is anti-corporation (maybe anti-monopoly is a better term), unlike most others on Fox. So he can say something sensible, usually then followed by utter nonsense solution

 

[Trunkage]

Nope because signature matching doesn't fucking work. It's only throws away more good votes than it does bad votes (unless you wanna pay professions to do it). It's like if you use evidence in court and prove your case (that signature matching is bullshit), the court will rule in your favor.

I dont think I've ever written a signature that is exactly the same as each other

 

[Gordon_4]

Tucker is anti-corporation (maybe anti-monopoly is a better term), unlike most others on Fox. So he can say something sensible, usually then followed by utter nonsense solution

No, I mean 'based' somehow becoming a synonym for good. How, the merry fuck, did THAT happen?

 

[Trunkage]

No, I mean 'based' somehow becoming a synonym for good. How, the merry fuck, did THAT happen?

How did the words incel or woke become a thing? Blame it on teenagers

My daughter says Bourgie too often. Or how ever you spell it. I was suprised to find out people have been using it for a decade, apparently

 

[Silvanus]

You should be outraged that nobody is doing anything about these allegations.

Not really; I don't consider allegations that aren't credible to require much investigation. Since the allegations have been so very vague, circumstantial, and have tended to be dropped at the sight of a judge's bench, I'm unconcerned. I'm more outraged that shysters such as Powell are willing to disregard the principle of a democratic vote on the basis of such flimsy guff, and that others are willing to entertain that line of argument if it means their favoured candidate can win.

That means "there was at least one poll watcher that wasn't kicked out".
Nobody said "ALL the Republican poll watchers were kicked out".

Actually, Trump did claim that, though via tweet rather than in court.

No process is too big for the election, the #1 most important thing ever to the country, right? It's important that NOBODY's vote be disenfranchised by fraud, right? That's we can't have voter-id, because that would disenfranchise a small number of poor people, right?

Again, we wouldn't have to do this if there had been security on the front end, which means challengers. But they couldn't do their job.

They claimed they couldn't do their job, though countless non-partisan officials and experts have confirmed they could do their job just fine. Can we stop just taking their statement as gospel?

The process of forensic signature-matching machines in use for every voter is too big for the election, actually, because it would take over 4 years to verify the vote that way, by which time it'd be time for another election.

No, I'm not. Plus, they already have and used signiature-matching software for this election, as it was the subject of at least one lawsuit.
I'm just talking about taking a sample of ballots, running them through the a process to detect if they were printed or not, and then use that result as the basis for further auditing.

Checking for this kind of stuff is part of the audit. Which was carried out in Georgia, and which you dismissed.

They did that. But nobody agreed to do an investigation. One example is the midnight ballots pulled out from under the table in Georgia.
Trumps team can't just order around the officials, you know.

Sorry, how do we investigate if or not a box was "pulled out from under the table at midnight"?

We can verify if the votes are correctly tabulated or not, and whether there's anything shifty about them, such as (as you've said) if they featured printed signatures. The process for that verification is the hand audit. Which was done.

And, as you said, that only detects this one type of fraud. It doesn't detect printed ballots.

A hand-audit by trained officials obviously should detect if ballots have just been mass-printed or not.

 

[Agema]

Indeed, it means good. In short, Tucker is having one of his populist moments where he says something that makes sense.

And you should worry. Tucker Carlson isn't competing over middle-class centreist voters with Biden, he's competing over disenchanted, poor voters with progressives.

 

[Seanchaidh]

And you should worry. Tucker Carlson isn't competing over middle-class centreist voters with Biden, he's competing over disenchanted, poor voters with progressives.

That certainly seems to be the straightforward intent. Note, however: mostly white poor given his other ramblings.

Another complication is, and you see this on the Democratic side as well, a more affluent audience is often the real target of these appeals. For the Democrats, MSNBC hosts and contributors talking about racism is often aimed at making affluent white liberals feel good about themselves and the morality of their political choices. For Republicans, anti-establishment rhetoric may be aimed at making affluent white conservatives feel good about themselves and the morality of their political choices. Rhetoric like Tucker's can be appreciated by literally anyone who isn't in the narrow slice of profiteers he's talking about and since being "for the poor" or "for the middle class" in some nebulous (and usually not substantial) way is standard fare, middle-class Republicans may end up liking it more because it's the sort of posturing they recognize they'll need to deploy in order best to win and because it can make them feel like they are on the right side of history or whatever. You are absolutely correct that he's not going to have much traction among the people who actually like Biden for whatever pernicious reason.

 

[ObsidianJones]

Let me take stock to see if I completely understand.

-Allegations of President Trump using campaign financing to pay off people with whom he had sexual dalliances. FBI obtained proof of Trump's direct involvement. It is illegal. Conservative media told us it was a Witch Hunt and we should leave it alone. You know, before their role in killing the story during the election.

Accusation. Proof Found. No Action. 1

-Accusations that Trump fired Comey over Russian Meddling. Turned out to be true because Trump said it himself.

Admittedly, this isn't as big of a whodunit as the Stormy Daniels thing when he just plain admits it. But there was a lot of talk from Conservative Pundits and Allies that Comey had reasons and it wasn't about the Russia thing, which was (I believe) the first use of the term "Nothing Burger". Trump Recants.

Accusation. Proof... told to us by the party in question. No Action. 2

-Accusations that Trump repeatedly violated the Emoluments Act. He mainly violated the act by trying to get more and more of his deals brokered in Hotels that he owns or forcing the Secret Service to use his hotels and billing the American People.

This one to me is special because there's documentation. There's four years of literal receipts. But the Supreme Court didn't get involved because the Dems didn't have the Senate or the House Majority. Not because there was some loophole that made Trump's actions legal. Not because Trump didn't do it. But the Dems didn't have enough numbers to push the matter to the Supreme Court. Fun!

Oh, and pundits dismissed it because it was an old law.

Accusation. The Proof was LITERALLY HANDED TO THE GOVERNMENT AS A FORM OF REIMBURSEMENT. But due to Partisanship, Republican Representative employed the "La la la, I can't hear you" approach that has served them well for 4 years. No Action. 3

-The Mueller Report and all that goes with it.

Multiple Accusations. Proof found but stated that a sitting President couldn't be charged with these crimes, but clarified that the individual could be charged after.

I was torn on this one. Trump was indeed impeached. But Even when some Republicans thought that the Democrats proved that Trump did indeed do misconduct... they chose not to do anything because 'it wasn't going to benefit the American people'. I'm going to rate this as a No Action. 4

And now we get to why I pointed this out. I actually have a lot more, but there's a character limit.

-Recounts. Certifications. Recertification. Court Cases upon Court Cases upon Court Cases. Allegations that Every person who doesn't agree that Trump was the winner is in a conspiracy. Even the Republicans who followed the laws, allowed for the recount, and actually wished Trump would come out ahead.

There is no proof. Simply Allegations. And we're supposed to throw away millions of votes on Allegations and ignore the steal that Republicans are trying to set about because they don't like the fact that they lost. That it's impossible that they lost. Even with four years of Scandals and Embarrassments like the scant I had room to put here as a preamble... they can't conceive that people would turn up in force to vote this man out.

When we had Proof, these people wanted it swept under the rug because Trump is their All. When they have accusations, they want the power of the American people stripped because it will make them feel better to burn the concept of America to the ground so they can say they are the Monarchs of the Ashes.

That about sums it up, right?

 

[Agema]

That about sums it up, right?

Yes, but you have to understand that:
a) Trump was morally allowed to cheat, because of the "deep state" and that the Democrats are agents of the globalist 1% elite.*
b) As necessary, retreat to "ensuring the security of the election" rather than fraud claims.**

* That is the base argument of populists everywhere. The people's will is paramount, and they solely represent the will of the people, so everyone has to do what they say and those who disagree with them are necessarily against the people. This ties in perfectly with the notion that they cannot lose an election fairly: how can they lose an election, when they are the true representation of the people, unless those who hate the people cheat? It's all a mass of circular logic, but serves the purpose for those want to believe hard enough.

** This is an example of the "motte and bailey" tactic (/fallacy) of using a stronger argument to defend a weaker one. When the weak argument can't be defended under pressure, pull back to the safer one, and then the minute the danger passes go out and re-occupy the weak argument again as if it was never refuted.

* * *

Incidentally, "nothingburger" has a significantly older pedigree. Back to the 80s, at least.

 

[Houseman]

Nope, because I don't want a random poll worker to be able to throw out ballots on a whim because they think the signatures aren't similar enough.

Then what's the point of having a signature at all?
How would you rather verify that the ballot came from the correct person?

though countless non-partisan officials and experts have confirmed they could do their job just fine.

Show me two, from the same swing-states and centers we've heard so much about, like the TCF center in Georgia.

Checking for this kind of stuff is part of the audit. Which was carried out in Georgia, and which you dismissed.

No it wasn't. https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/electi...r_ballots_upholds_result_of_presidential_race

All they did was count.

Sorry, how do we investigate if or not a box was "pulled out from under the table at midnight"?

Well, we have video proof that they were, so case closed.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

So how would you prevent fraud? How would you stop me from filling out a ballot meant for someone else?

And why would you require signatures in the first place?

I'm just telling you that signatures don't work. I'm pretty sure fraud is a lot harder than you think (there's a Last Week Tonight going through what you'd have to do to get a ballot that isn't yours).

I'm sure signatures are required for the same reason you need to sign when you pay for a hamburger at the bar and you can sign Mickey Mouse there if you want. You think there's people comparing signatures on all the stuff you actually have to sign for?

 

[Houseman]

News from the front

AZ State Senate hearings on election integrity starting soon:


Contested states will send alternate electors:

Dominion forensic report by the "fake company" ASOG guy

 

[Hades]

Tucker is anti-corporation (maybe anti-monopoly is a better term), unlike most others on Fox. So he can say something sensible, usually then followed by utter nonsense solution

Isn't Tucker a big time heir of corporate fortune himself? I don't really think his corporate stance is sincere. He like just tries to style himself as ''fighting for the working class'' to improve his image and ratings.