Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)

[Avnger]

Vote Harvesting in Harris County? Beyond Coincidence ?

Disclaimer: All persons mentioned in this post are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The Texas Democratic Party has f...

www.texastrashtalk.com

<image snip>

Did anybody go to jail over this in 2018? Was there any investigation done?

Our elections are not secure. Nobody enforces the laws. Nobody investigates. Nobody takes it seriously. So no, it wouldn't take a herculean effort to sabotage them.

Those are APPLICATIONS FOR BALLOT BY MAIL. They aren't actual ballots. Those words are in every one of those fucking pictures for Christ's sake...

There a large number of entirely legal reasons why one person could have filled out all of these applications. For things such as a "get out the vote" operation, a single person could have pre-filled forms (minus signature) for everyone on a block or in an apartment complex or in a nursing home or whatever. The volunteer then gives the pre-filled forms to voters to remove as much 'work' as possible and encourage even those who might not otherwise to participate in elections.

It's almost like you have no idea how elections work in the US and are making inane assumptions based on specious evidence...

 

[Houseman]

Those are APPLICATIONS FOR BALLOT BY MAIL. Those aren't actual ballots. It's in every one of those fucking pictures for Christ's sake...

Yes.

There a large number of entirely legal reasons why one person could have filled out all of these applications.

That's why the article goes into more detail and finds more evidence that this was a fraudulent vote harvesting operation. This was only Step 1.

 

[Trunkage]

They are obviously all written by the same person.

Yeah, they dont look at all similar

We'll see. Maybe he died of an overdose from all the illegal drugs he was taking.

Did Kyle shoot people?

 

[Houseman]

Yeah, they dont look at all similar

Then one of us needs glasses or has trouble recognizing subtle details.

 

[Trunkage]

Then one of us needs glasses or has trouble recognizing subtle details.

Perhaps neither of us should be poll assessors (or what ever the US term is)

Eg. The two highlighted parts reading Texas were clearly very different

 

[Houseman]

Perhaps neither of us should be poll assessors (or what ever the US term is)

Eg. The two highlighted parts reading Texas were clearly very different

I'll come right out and say it, it's you. You either need glasses or you have trouble recognizing subtle details.
Is the handwriting exactly the same and consistent across all the applications? No, of course not. Nobody's handwriting is perfectly consistent.

Are there telltale similarities that ARE consistent in each of the applications? Yes. And if you can't see them, then I refer you to my first statement.

 

[Avnger]

That's why the article goes into more detail and finds more evidence that this was a fraudulent vote harvesting operation. This was only Step 1.

All the article proves is that an election operation under the name AB Canvassing was conducting the exact type of legal "get out the vote" activities I gave an example of in my post. The assumptions and insinuations they made beyond that aren't supported by the evidence they found and simply shows that you aren't the only one who doesn't understand US elections. Whatever bozo hosts that unsecure blog falls into the same boat you do.

I guess they also possibly showed that AB Canvassing was doing the societally beneficial thing of providing ex-cons with legit employment (which has been proven to reduce their likelihood of re-offending), but that's neither here nor there.

 

[Silvanus]

Did anybody go to jail over this in 2018? Was there any investigation done?

So its based on... handwriting looking similar. In an election for a precinct constable, concerning a few dozen votes at most. And the complainant dropped the suit.

The sauce just gets weaker and weaker.

Our elections are not secure. Nobody enforces the laws. Nobody investigates. Nobody takes it seriously. So no, it wouldn't take a herculean effort to sabotage them.

Of course, you'll only reach this conclusion if you assume the corruption or complicity of everyone who actually is involved in investigation/ auditing etc.

"If we assume all investigation was bogus, then there was no non-bogus investigation!"

 

[Houseman]

And the complainant dropped the suit.

And that's part of the problem. It appears as though it's up to individuals to police the election, instead of, you know, the police.

Our elections are so secure that detecting and punishing fraud lies in the hands of individuals who have no special authority and no means to gather evidence other than to pay out-of-pocket for state data, long after the election is over and the records are unsealed.

Of course, you'll only reach this conclusion if you assume the corruption or complicity of everyone who actually is involved in investigation/ auditing etc.

1) What investigations?
2) We already have video of the auditors raising concerned and being told "shut up and count". We already have testimony of Republican challengers getting thrown out. In some states, nobody is allowed to challenge a ballot or a signature. Everyone who isn't complicit is shouted down or escorted out of the building.

 

[SilentPony]

SNIP

Oh so not only are you a software developer with "8 years" of experience who has no idea how software actually works, but now you're a graphologist who has no idea how handwriting is compared. You say there are similarities, as if you have any fucking clue what you're talking about. But clearly as a trained hand-writing expert you know that the odds of finding someone with very similar handwriting is 1 in 20, exactly the same is 1 in 130,000. So a random selection of 40 mail in ballots should find 2 signatures that have similar handwriting even if the names are different. And you know that because you're a trained hand writing analyst on top of being a "software developer" with "8 years" of experience.

I mean seriously are there any other skills you want to pretend you have? Fuck it, why not just say your a election statistical analyst, and a poll watcher in all 50 states, and also someone with Q level security clearance. Its not like you'll hurt your credibility.

 

[Houseman]

But clearly as a trained hand-writing expert you know that the odds of finding someone with very similar handwriting is 1 in 20, exactly the same is 1 in 130,000. So a random selection of 40 mail in ballots should find 2 signatures that have similar handwriting even if the names are different

And the article goes on to mention that all of these similar applications came from the same precinct, used the same pre-printed envelope, were postmarked at the same time, and used the same stamp.

What are the odds of that?

 

[Silvanus]

And that's part of the problem. It appears as though it's up to individuals to police the election, instead of, you know, the police.

Our elections are so secure that detecting and punishing fraud lies in the hands of individuals who have no special authority and no means to gather evidence other than to pay out-of-pocket for state data, long after the election is over and the records are unsealed.

No, its in the hands of aggrieved individuals to challenge what happened. Making sure it runs correctly is in the hands of state officials. The people are in place; its just that you believe all the people whose job it is to police it are all in on it.

"Nobody's policing it, if we assume everyone policing it is a conspirator".

1) What investigations?
2) We already have video of the auditors raising concerned and being told "shut up and count". We already have testimony of Republican challengers getting thrown out. In some states, nobody is allowed to challenge a ballot or a signature. Everyone who isn't complicit is shouted down or escorted out of the building.

We have audio of people whose job is, at that time, solely to count, being told to count. Because they're bringing complaints at the wrong time and place. We have testimony of Republican challengers being thrown out solely from Republican challengers... and then other testimony, from non-partisan workers as well as other Republicans, saying poll-watchers and challengers were able to do their jobs just fine.

Without fail, you just strip away all context, strip away any conflicting statements, and leave a summary solely of Republican claims, uncritically presented as truth.

 

[SilentPony]

What are the odds of that?

Easier than you can comprehend.

Harris County elections were fair and secure, task force finds

The Election Security Task Force for Harris County said in a report released Friday that it "found no proof of any election tampering, ballot harvesting, voter suppression, intimidation or any other type of foul play that might have impacted the legitimate cast or count of a ballot."

www.texastribune.org

 

[gorfias]

Well...no. That's not how it works. Its not "This may or may not have happened, also it totally did happen and they've improved it."
If Hilary didn't cheat, which no one has ever found any evidence she did, and all investigations, even those by Trump's people, found nothing, then there was no system to improve. The process didn't exist 4 years ago, so there was no process to improve. Allegations like election fraud aren't like middle school arguments, you actually have to provide proof. There is no "maybe, maybe not" there is only proven and unproven. No one has ever proven Hilary cheated; in fact they proven there was no cheating. There is no "Well maybe they still did, and now they've perfected the process" follow up.
Its Hilary didn't cheat, full stop, end of sentence. Anything else is by definition factless, baseless, anti-reality, historical revisionist malarkey for the sake of the Biden stole 2020 mythology.

Fine: keep Hillary out of the conversation. Today's system allows one to better know ahead of time how much is needed to cheat and steal than existed 4 years ago.
Very amusing that polls won't do it. The polls for Hillary and Biden's leads, even with the election aparently stolen, were not what the pollsters were telling us the margins would be. Counting only upon them would have caused Biden supporters to fall short of what they needed to steal.

 

[gorfias]

Of course there wasn't.

Dictators can fiddle elections because they have the power to control the electoral process from start to finish, and law enforcement, media and whatever else they need. The Democrats very plainly do not have that sort of control. Amassing enough fraudulent votes to swing an election is really difficult. In a country such as the USA, it's a minimum of hundreds of thousands of votes across numerous states. That requires huge logistical effort, a huge number of people, who are supposed to carry this off whilst operating under mass scrutiny. An operation of that magnitude would be cracked open and exposed as easily as an egg under a 4-pound hammer.



No, it hasn't. No-one can know how many votes they need.

They would have to assume the polls are reliable - they're normally relaible to a couple of percent, although this year they were unusually inaccurate. They would also need to know turnout, which is vital for any such calculations, and also hard to predict, because that will also completely screw calculations. For instance, the polls showed Trump and Biden level-pegging in Ohio and Georgia. But Biden won Georgia by a whisker and lost Ohio by about 8 points. That tells you something about just how hard it is to predict how many false votes would be needed to win.



This also is basically junk.

If the Texas suit does not have "standing" - which, let's face it, the people presenting it must have suspected - then there was an easy remedy. Hand the legal arguments to literally any Pennsylvania / Michigan / etc. citizen willing to put it forward instead: it's not like a lot of those legal arguments really change. The president has asked for a mass of funding to do precisely things like that.

Although, of course, it has been pointed out that the resources deployed by the Trump campaign and Republicans for legal challenges were remarkably threadbare: the planning and infrastructure simply had not been laid down to launch the sort of legal assault that the supposed severity warranted. So either they were completely incompetent, or it's all just theatre and they weren't really willing to put their money where their mouths were. And it's the latter, isn't it?

I wish what you write about voter fraud were true. Sadly, it is not. Example:

Voter Fraud Is Nothing New: The 1960 Election of JFK - Helleniscope

EDITOR’S NOTE (Nick Stamatakis): Tons of articles and many books have been written on the famous 1960 election whereby JFK won by 113,000 votes out of 68 million ballots cast. The majority of the questions raised had to do with the Chicago Mafia and especially the corrupt Mayor Richard Daly...

www.helleniscope.com

What do you do about it, especially if the elite of both parties want this: it helps them get someone they want vs. someone the people want.

HRC had a fleet of lawyers yet never contested the election. It is posited credulously, that had she done so, an analysis would have exposed just how much fraud there was in that election and cost her the "popular vote" narrative. She arguably didn't even win that.

 

[Houseman]

No, its in the hands of aggrieved individuals to challenge what happened.

With what evidence? What they can gather on their own? Again, part of the problem.

The people are in place; its just that you believe all the people whose job it is to police it are all in on it.

They're also the ones whose necks are one the line if it turns out that something went wrong, right? So they're automatically biased.

Let's just take the case of republicans getting thrown out of tabulation rooms to applause. Who got held accountable for that? Anyone? Or did people just say "yeah, our bad, so sorry, we'll try better next election", while giving knowing winks and high-fives out of view of the camera?

Not policing it is, yes, the same as being in on it, like the guard who looks the other way for a assassination.

We have audio of people whose job is, at that time, solely to count, being told to count.

"And we know they were there solely to count, because the lady in the audio said so, so we must believe her without question"

That sounds like circular logic. Who else was interviewed about this? The people who had questions? If they all agree "yes, we were initially mistaken in our role during this 'audit'", then fine. Otherwise, you're just taking her at her word and choosing to believe that the people with questions didn't know their role.

We have testimony of Republican challengers being thrown out solely from Republican challengers...

How do you think these things work? Do you think that Rudy Giuliani can just break into a democrat's house and force them to give testimony under oath?
No. He has no authority to do so. So of course you're going to get a self-selecting sample of Republican whistleblowers, because they're the injured party.

Have you heard any democrats come out and give testimony under penalty of perjury saying "no, nobody clapped"? Then we'd have a real argument on our hands. But until then you're just saying "republicans can't be trusted because republicans are bad!"

and then other testimony, from non-partisan workers as well as other Republicans, saying poll-watchers and challengers were able to do their jobs just fine.

No you don't, not for the same precincts. At most, you have people saying "technically, as long as there's only one poll-watcher in the building, the rules are being followed", and "technically, even if they're corralled in the corner of the room or six feet away behind a plexiglass shield, the rules are being followed". Other than that, what you have comes from officials who have skin in the game, not boots-on-the-ground workers.

I know this because you and others have said those things before.

Easier than you can comprehend.

Would you like another L?

 

[Thaluikhain]

4 years ago I was convinced Warhammer 8th Edition wouldn't be that fun, but I ended up being wrong and loving it.

Really? The rules look an impressive mess to me, but they work? The new fluff tends to be terrible, though.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Really? The rules look an impressive mess to me, but they work? The new fluff tends to be terrible, though.

The new rules are fine enough, I like how it changed the scope of the game. As for the fluff I like it too, SOMETHING HAPPENED! AND NOT AS CATASTROPHIC AS FANTASY!

 

[Houseman]

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I wish what you write about voter fraud were true. Sadly, it is not. Example:

Voter Fraud Is Nothing New: The 1960 Election of JFK - Helleniscope

EDITOR’S NOTE (Nick Stamatakis): Tons of articles and many books have been written on the famous 1960 election whereby JFK won by 113,000 votes out of 68 million ballots cast. The majority of the questions raised had to do with the Chicago Mafia and especially the corrupt Mayor Richard Daly...

www.helleniscope.com

What do you do about it, especially if the elite of both parties want this: it helps them get someone they want vs. someone the people want.

HRC had a fleet of lawyers yet never contested the election. It is posited credulously, that had she done so, an analysis would have exposed just how much fraud there was in that election and cost her the "popular vote" narrative. She arguably didn't even win that.

...so why didn't Trump find that evidence?