Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)

[SilentPony]

SNIP

Oh my god, I just figured it out. I know why you're always wrong about current claims and citing already disproven sources! You're from the past! That's it, isn't it? Somehow the time/space continuum of the Escapist got fractured and you came into what you think of as the future but is actually for the rest of the us the present. You're like 3 weeks behind the rest of us! It makes so much sense! What day do you come from? The 8th? The 9th?
God you've missed so much, mostly all the conspiracy theories peddled in the days after the election have been disproven. No wonder you're not aware of lawsuits being thrown out, of witnesses retracting their statements, and seemingly do no research on any claims you make. Its because in your timeline those lawsuits haven't been thrown out, and you did your research, but radical false claims haven't been disproven yet.
I usually pride myself on figuring people out, and you threw me for a mystery for sure. But just being 3 weeks out of date explains it all. Anything you want to know about that happened like 2 weeks ago?

 

[Houseman]

No evidence, nothing to see here, drink your Ovaltine and watch CNN.


Also, funny how signatures were a huge hurdle to clear before, but they aren't now:

Kanye West booted off Illinois ballot amid thousands of invalid signatures

Kanye West won’t be appearing on the presidential ballot for his home state after election officials in Illinois found that 1,900 of the 3,128 signatures West submitted are invalid.

nypost.com

 

[SilentPony]

Damnit, Pony, don't you know?! The Republicans can never suffer a mistake. There's NO SUCH THING when it comes to a mistake when it comes to Republican! Everything is an intentional action slated against their political leanings! That's why they cultivated the preponderance of Karens to safeguard morality.

I think you owe Republicans an apology for not realizing everything needs to be perfect for them. You should know better by now...

Reality has a well known Liberal bias.
I mean they would be scary if they weren't so inept and bad at things. Can you imagine the damage Trump could do if he could read? Or if Giuliani wasn't hammered all the time? Thank god all these guys are losers.

 

[Avnger]

" THEY WOULD’NT [sic] LET REPUBLICAN POLL WATCHERS INTO THE COUNTING ROOMS. UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! "

For that statement to be true, all they need is at least two republican watchers, to satisfy the plural, to be denied access into the counting rooms, and I'm pretty sure that's true. If they turned away Gary, they probably turned away others before they "realized their mistake".

This statement isn't the same as "They wouldn't let any republican poll watchers into the counting rooms".

Why did you purposely ignore this other quote Silvanus provided? Is it because it shows how bullshit this argument is?

Actually, that's precisely what Trump has claimed.

This was a rigged election. No Republican Poll Watchers allowed, voting machine 'glitches' all over the place (meaning they got caught cheating!), voting after election ended, and so much more!

 

[Silvanus]

This statement isn't the same as "They wouldn't let any republican poll watchers into the counting rooms".

OK. And the quote where he says, "No Republican poll watchers allowed"?

So no affidavits, got it.

You quite clearly don't actually understand what the process involves, if you think there would be in these circumstances.

Also, certification is currently halted in PA pending a case on Friday, despite your claim that THERE NO EVIDENCE, so there's that.

Uhrm, that delay isn't based on claims of fraud. Mike Kelly is filing suit claiming that Act 77 (which allowed PA residents to vote by mail without having to give a reason) is unconstitutional. That's the suit that caused the delay; its not based on claimed incidents of fraud.

On a side note, I wonder why Kelly would wait until now to legally challenge the right to vote by mail, enacted in PA a year ago?

 

[Houseman]

There's going to be a real hearing in Nevada on December 3rd:

Huge court win lets Trump present ballot evidence, could overturn Nevada result - Washington Examiner

A Nevada judge has agreed to let the Trump campaign present its evidence that fraud and illegalities plagued the state’s election, enough to reverse Joe Biden's win and set an example for other state challenges.According to Trump officials, the judge set a Dec. 3 hearing date and is allowing 15...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[Cheetodust]

" THEY WOULD’NT [sic] LET REPUBLICAN POLL WATCHERS INTO THE COUNTING ROOMS. UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! "

For that statement to be true, all they need is at least two republican watchers, to satisfy the plural, to be denied access into the counting rooms, and I'm pretty sure that's true. If they turned away Gary, they probably turned away others before they "realized their mistake".

This statement isn't the same as "They wouldn't let any republican poll watchers into the counting rooms".

No but the third post that you snipped out is. Why was that?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

It wouldn't, because the evidence of fraud is in the signatures, and we have plenty of affidavits testifying that the signatures were never verified by both parties.

Signature verification isn't very good at finding fraud unless you actually think we have professionals doing this.

With respect to signatures, studies have shown that laypeople are 3.5 times more likely to call a good signature bad and 13 times more likely to call a bad signature good (simulation) than a properly trained and qualified Forensic Document Examiner.

 

[Houseman]

OK. And the quote where he says, "No Republican poll watchers allowed"?

No but the third post that you snipped out is. Why was that?

In the amended Giuliani complaint, it still says " In Philadelphia County, poll watchers and canvass representatives were denied access altogether in some instances. "
There are obviously multiple locations where ballots were being counted. Some did, some didn't.

You quite clearly don't actually understand what the process involves, if you think there would be in these circumstances.

I don't think there would be, I'm just making a jab at how people are like "lol the people at the hearings aren't affiants, they're just making stuff up, we can't believe anything we say without an affidavit!"

But suddenly, when it comes to the other party, no affidavit is needed for that they say to be taken as gospel.

Double standards.

Uhrm, that delay isn't based on claims of fraud. Mike Kelly is filing suit claiming that Act 77 (which allowed PA residents to vote by mail without having to give a reason) is unconstitutional. That's the suit that caused the delay; its not based on claimed incidents of fraud.

It's all essentially the same. One headline reads "Republican Pa. congressman seeks court order throwing out all mail ballots in long-shot suit", which sounds familiar, no?

Unconstitutional, fraud, whatever you want to call it, the outcome is the same: Trump wins.

 

[Avnger]

Signature verification isn't very good at finding fraud unless you actually think we have professionals doing this.

With respect to signatures, studies have shown that laypeople are 3.5 times more likely to call a good signature bad and 13 times more likely to call a bad signature good (simulation) than a properly trained and qualified Forensic Document Examiner.

I have to wonder if he's actually ever signed anything in his life. I first signed for my driver's license at 16. I then registered to vote with a noticeably different signature at 18. Now years later as an adult having signed hundreds of documents/forms/electronic pads since, my signature is, once again, different. Hell, my signature can change slightly one day to another depending on literally nothing more than how lazy I was feeling at the time of writing.

Anyone other than an expert doing signature verification beyond "does this somewhat roughly look similar" is doing little more than guessing. And when the result of that guessing could be voters losing their constitutional rights, that's not an acceptable risk.

Also I'm pretty sure he's blocked me for calling him out too many times xD

 

[Houseman]

Signature verification isn't very good at finding fraud unless you actually think we have professionals doing this.

The rules are the rules. The rules say that the signatures must be verified by all parties. They weren't. A professional may be better suited, but isn't necessary.
You can object to the usefulness of the rule, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[Silvanus]

In the amended Giuliani complaint, it still says " In Philadelphia County, poll watchers and canvass representatives were denied access altogether in some instances. "
There are obviously multiple locations where ballots were being counted. Some did, some didn't.

So we both agree some poll watchers were present at counting.

I don't think there would be, I'm just making a jab at how people are like "lol the people at the hearings aren't affiants, they're just making stuff up, we can't believe anything we say without an affidavit!"

But suddenly, when it comes to the other party, no affidavit is needed for that they say to be taken as gospel.

Double standards.

Uhrm, firstly, I haven't said anything of the sort, so I don't know why you're pulling this out as a rebuttal to me.

Secondly... different situations have different legal requirements. That's not a "double standard". A claimant will obviously have a burden of proof that a defendant doesn't have. The defendant need only provide counter-evidence if there's something to counter.

It's all essentially the same. One headline reads "Republican Pa. congressman seeks court order throwing out all mail ballots in long-shot suit", which sounds familiar, no?

Unconstitutional, fraud, whatever you want to call it, the outcome is the same: Trump wins.

This is just a complete failure to understand the process. You insinuated that the fact the delay was granted indicates that there's evidence of some kind to support the fraud allegation. That's not so: the delay was on entirely different grounds, which didn't require any evidence of fraud to be submitted.

 

[Houseman]

So we both agree some poll watchers were present at counting.

In some places, and at some times, yes. At other places and at other times, no.

Uhrm, firstly, I haven't said anything of the sort,

I'm just grouping all y'all together. I'm not tracking who, specifically, said what.

Secondly... different situations have different legal requirements. That's not a "double standard".

It's a moral or ideological double standard. One side has affidavits, and they still are called liars. The second anyone says anything they want to hear, they hold that up like it's solid gold proof.

. You insinuated that the fact the delay was granted indicates that there's evidence of some kind to support the fraud allegation

Unconstitutional, fraud, whatever you want to call it, the outcome is the same: Trump wins.

 

[Silvanus]

In some places, and at some times, yes. At other places and at other times, no.

This reminds me of the mealy-mouthed concession Jerome Marcus had to make in court: "there were a non-zero number of people in the room". Recall how exasperated the (Republican-appointed) judge was at this point?

I'm just grouping all y'all together. I'm not tracking who, specifically, said what.

This is truly the grasp of detail I've come to expect of the Trump legal team.

It's a moral or ideological double standard. One side has affidavits, and they still are called liars. The second anyone says anything they want to hear, they hold that up like it's solid gold proof.

Probably because affidavits aren't the be-all and end-all of evidence, and the claimants have consistently failed to present anything verifiable or demonstrative. A sworn statement from some guy isn't enough. And the only person placing such massive importance on affidavits here is you, so I have no idea why you seem to think I'm holding a double standard on them. They're never sufficient to make an argument alone.

Unconstitutional, fraud, whatever you want to call it, the outcome is the same: Trump wins.

Huh, awful lot of losing happening for a winner. 22-nil?

 

[Houseman]

Recall how exasperated the (Republican-appointed) judge was at this point?

No, because I didn't see a video of it. Did you?

Huh, awful lot of losing happening for a winner. 22-nil?

All they need is the Supreme Court. Even if they "lose" in the lower courts.

A sworn statement from some guy isn't enough.

I heard they have, like 60 affidavits so far.

 

[Avnger]

News:

Appeals court rejects Trump's Pennsylvania case.

"Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so," wrote Stephanos Bibas on behalf of a three-judge panel.

"Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here," he wrote Bibas, who was nominated by Trump. The case could still be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In fresh blow to Trump, U.S. court rejects Pennsylvania election case

A federal appeals court on Friday rejected an attempt by U.S. President Donald Trump's campaign to block President-elect Joe Biden from being declared the winner of Pennsylvania, dealing another significant setback to Trump's bid to overturn the Nov. 3 election.

www.reuters.com

 

[Agema]

No evidence, nothing to see here, drink your Ovaltine and watch CNN.

And yet if it were a press report of some leaked comment from an "unnamed source", you'd have a very different attitude to it, wouldn't you?

All they need is the Supreme Court. Even if they "lose" in the lower courts.

That's an interesting statement. You're suggesting the Republicans can win as long as it goes to a court Trump was able to stack.

So that's what all this bullshit is about. It's not about election fraud and ethics at all. It's about finding a way for your precious party and president to win by hook or by crook: cheating's fine, as long as it's your guys winning that way.

 

[Houseman]

JUST IN: Arizona State Legislature to Hold Public Hearing on Election Integrity on Monday, Nov. 30 | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

The Arizona state legislature will hold a hearing on election integrity on Monday, November 30.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Arizona fraud hearing Nov 30

cheating's fine, as long as it's your guys winning that way.

Cheating is not fine, that's why this is being taken to court, to get justice.

 

[Agema]

Cheating is not fine, that's why this is being taken to court, to get justice.

If you'd been criticising the attempts to throw out hundreds of thousands of potentially legal ballots on the flimsy evidence a few might have been faulty, or the calls for legislatures to simply overrule their people and install electors who will vote Trump irrespective of the actual will of the people, I might have more sympathy.

As it is, you're simply cheerleading for tyranny.

 

[Houseman]

Also:

PA House RESOLUTION Disputing the 2020 General Election Statewide Contest Results

WHEREAS, heavily Democrat counties permitted mail-in voters to cure ballot defects while heavily Republican counties followed the law and invalidated defective ballots; and

WHEREAS, in certain counties in the Commonwealth, watchers were not allowed to meaningfully observe the pre-canvassing and canvassing activities relating to absentee and mail-in ballots; and

WHEREAS, in other parts of the Commonwealth, watchers observed irregularities concerning the pre-canvassing and canvassing of absentee and mail-in ballots; and

WHEREAS, postal employees in Pennsylvania have reported anomalies relating to mail-in ballots, including multiple ballots delivered to a single address with unfamiliar addressees, ballots mailed to vacant homes, empty lots, and addresses that did not exist; and

WHEREAS, witnesses testifying before the Pennsylvania Senate Majority Policy Committee on November 25, 2020 have provided additional compelling information regarding the questionable nature of the administration of the 2020 General Election; and

WHEREAS, there remains ongoing litigation concerning the administration of the November 3, 2020 election in the Commonwealth; and

WHEREAS, in 2016, Pennsylvania’s general election results were certified on December 12, 2016, and on November 24, 2020, the Secretary of the Commonwealth unilaterally and prematurely certified results of the November 3, 2020 election regarding presidential electors despite ongoing litigation; and

WHEREAS, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives has the duty to ensure that no citizen of this Commonwealth is disenfranchised, to insist that all elections are conducted according to the law, and to satisfy the general public that every legal vote is counted accurately;