"But, but...what about my "I can't cope with election results" conference going on?"
Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
- Status
They're currently breaking for lunch, and will resume a 3pm eastern
But this method of attack is based around the idea that legislators, those who are the "audience" for these hearings, are able to de-certify and even able to place their own electors. So their tactic is that if they can convince enough legislators, they can get them to do what everybody else won't.
Violate democratic norms and standards in a manner never before seen in the United States, and which would have seemed unthinkable a decade or so ago?
No, the circumstances are thus:
Getting the obvious out of the way, the Clark County case you're talking about - which now requires a special election - is a singular race for the commission seat of District C. Not the presidential race, not the ballot in general. Just the local race for the District C commission seat. In the case of that race, the margin of victory was a mere 10 votes. For that District race there were 153,162 votes cast, and a discrepancy of only 139 (0.0908%). However, characterizing the votes as "tossed out because of too many irregularities" is at best severely misleading, and at worst simply not true. Notably for the obvious implications you're insinuating: there's no evidence of fraud. Hell, while discrepancies are statistically rare, the presence of some discrepancies within a given election is almost inevitable simply because of the sheer volume of votes cast. Contrary to popular narrative, however, the discrepancies are usually the result of human or clerical error, rather than malfeasance. Eg, if someone checks into the polling place but does not submit a ballot (or vice versa), it creates one such discrepancy through the mismatch of votes counted (cast) and votes reported (checked in).
While it's not an exact match, the basic gist of it is not the "ohh, the results were compromised" angle you're implying so much as it is "the results were within the margin of error, so we need to run it again". Consequentially, the proposed resolution is - as per usual - a special election. This is more or less Standard Operating Procedure.
Right. From a quick Google, the actual number of questionable ballots was 139 (less than 0.1% of those cast; hundreds" is a bit of an exaggeration), which is fourteen times greater than the vctory margin. For what it's worth, many of these are likely to be innocent error or other minor issues rather than deliberate fraud. This is clearly nothing like the presidential election, where there is as yet no adequate evidence of discrepancies, never mind fraud, that comes remotely close to the size of Trump's deficit in any state.
They are hoping to hold a replacement election in the coming months - this seems a not unreasonable response. Unfortunately, that is a luxury that the presidential election cannot afford.
Pennsylvania Lawmakers Formally Introduce Resolution to Dispute 2020 Election Results
www.theepochtimes.com
This is par for the course for Mark Finchem, who (after a quick google) appears to be a member of several far-right conspiracy theorist groups.
Paul Gosar's tweet there is a bit misleading: the resolution is actually not arguing that the election should be voided on the basis of fraud. It couldn't do so after all, because fraud would actually need to be proven in order for it to provide a legal basis.
The resolution is based on the argument that the executive & judiciary in Arizona usurped the role of the legislature, in determining certain electoral rules. An argument which has already been put forward (and has failed) elsewhere in the country. Nothing to do with fraud; Gosar's just conflating the two in order to rile people up.
This isn't going anywhere. It's going to go the same way as the other several-dozen shitty cobbled-together legal gripes and "challenges" the dregs of the Republican Party have thrown at the wall since November 3rd. Nowhere. Its sole purpose is to rile people up.
Last edited:
Arizona News
Arizona Breaking news, local stories, and On Your Side investigations from the state’s largest television newsroom.
www.azfamily.com
Because that's the fun part when you hold a fake hearing; it's all piss in the wind without the other Representatives there to hold, oh I don't know, official resolutions and votes. If that's all it took to get stuff done like that, just saying "we're doing it", then things like the Green New Deal would have already happened.
I mean, we're doing it again.Arizona News
Arizona Breaking news, local stories, and On Your Side investigations from the state’s largest television newsroom.
Because that's the fun part when you hold a fake hearing; it's all piss in the wind without the other Representatives there to hold, oh I don't know, official resolutions and votes. If that's all it took to get stuff done like that, just saying "we're doing it", then things like the Green New Deal would have already happened.
We're using logic while there are literally nearly 74 million people who are not operating with logic, but whistles and "SQUIRREL" tactics.
To you, myself, and others, this looks comically inept.
To the true believers of the cult, someone can spin this as "THEY IGNORED STATE LEGISLATORS TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT?! HOW FAR ARE THEY GOING TO GO TO STEAL THIS?!"
We're dealing with people who divorced reality and are operating on what their feelings are telling them. This will probably not look good to them.
So Sidney Powell files another lawsuit destined to be laughed out of court, where a "witness" attests there's something "fishy" about the election returns in Edison County, MI.
There certainly may be something fishy there!
Unfortunately the thing that would be fishy would be if there *were* election returns in Edison County, Michigan. For you see, dear readers, there IS no Edison County, Michigan. Nor is there an Edison County in any of these 50 states.
They embarrass themselves yet again.
There certainly may be something fishy there!
Unfortunately the thing that would be fishy would be if there *were* election returns in Edison County, Michigan. For you see, dear readers, there IS no Edison County, Michigan. Nor is there an Edison County in any of these 50 states.
They embarrass themselves yet again.
Clearly the Dems stole the county itself. Have they no decency?
Could probably be chalked up to an OCR error. He may of typed, or meant, "Eaton County".
Notice that "Declaration" at the top is spelled: "DECLERATION"
I've heard they receive these things in physical format, and then they are scanned and OCR'd.
Hey Hey!
Don't you go brining facts and reality into this. This is a serious conversation about how Latino ghosts stuffed ballots in Las Vegas to make sure an orange clown doesn't win. All this nonsense about "Oh that county doesn't actually exist" and "There actually weren't 50,000 suspect mail-in ballots" and "under threat of perjury do you swear you have evidence of voter fraud" is just liberal laimstream media talk to muddy the truth, which is that Donald Trump won this election by 408 electoral college points, and Biden's entire campaign was disqualified from the electoral college by being off side during halftime.
Please take your crackpot theories about fake counties elsewhere, thank you!
Mate these proceedings would embarrass a banana republic. That this fiasco occurred in the country that has considered itself democracy’s greatest champion and bastion of free will is just......like waking up in the mirror universe from Star Trek except the men didn’t have the decency to grow moustaches.
Who gets to pick the sample? How large is the sample?
If these two sources are talking about the same thing, then it's only 100 ballots.
100 is an absolute farce.
IDK, why don’t we consider other possibilities. Maybe its that they’ve been checked multiple times and these 100 might be the only ones disputed?
Who gets to pick the sample? How large is the sample?
If these two sources are talking about the same thing, then it's only 100 ballots.
100 is an absolute farce.
Is it utterly pointless me saying this?
Without any evidence, yes. Do you have any evidence that they're choosing a specific 100, and that they're choosing these specific 100 because these are the only ones in dispute? If not, then what you said is pointless.
- Status