Alright, so why is it relevant? This is old news we all knew about and the Dem party is currently in-fighting over why they underperformed compared to Biden. Progressives saw this coming way longer than the election.
Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
- Status
Irregularities are just another exhibit of evidence to throw on the pile with the rest.
Evidence of what though? So far it's evidence of the Dems failing to capture votes.
I actually just did some basic math in my head and found something deeply disturbing. Did you know of the last 4 elections, 3 of them had Biden on them? That's 75%! And if you look at the 55 elections before that not a single one had Biden on it! Biden has been on a irregular number of Presidential ballots! He's been in over 5% of all presidential elections! Tell me that doesn't strike you as evidence of fraud. Fuck me, up until 2008 he was never on a presidential ballot! That's hundreds of years of no Biden. And now we're just supposed to accept he magically appeared one day?! Hardly...
It possibly could be Printed votes, or maybe even votes that have been flipped, either manually or electronically.
And that's where you lose it because the numbers you quote as being proof of this don't show this. You have 0 evidence for that assertion, and the number you're using to imply malfeasance gets explained away through basic math.
Silly liberal Democrat. Basic Math IS malfeasance for Trump voters! What's the Farnsworth quote, "No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!" or as OAN puts it Trump: 410 Biden: 128
I'm not saying it's proof. I'm saying it's just one piece of evidence. One irregular data point to put on the pile along with the irregular midnight spikes just after they sent people home so that ballots can be counted in secret. It's something suspicious, like how a bloody knife is suspicious. The guy could have been cutting beef, or he could have cut himself, or maybe he was committing murder.
Every single one of these data points are easily explainable through absolutely mundane means, and was usually predicted through these mundane means months or even years in advance.
Why did down ballot dems underperform? Obama hollowed out the state parties to focus the Democrat machine on the presidential elections, with the Democrat party drifting out of touch with the voting base, they're going to lose more and more voteshare to Republicans, a trend that has been happening since 2010 since Obama fucked it all up. This is further shown by the degree to which the down ballot dems compared to each other, namely that progressive candidates outperformed their centrist counterparts, and some of the centrists who lost harder than others were poor campaigners.
Meanwhile the dems billed this election as "stop Trump", so people voted to stop Trump, but that gives no reason or incentive to vote down ballot and lo and behold, down ballot suffered. This anomaly was absolutely predictable by everyone except the blue MAGA crowd shouting VBNMW. There's no real reason to believe something shady happened when there was massively increased turnout, the Republican presidential candidate had been painted as exceptional by both sides, and the Democrats have been on a decade long losing streak with 2018 being the anomaly.
"There may be a reasonable explanation for this" does not disprove "this may be evidence of fraud". It's just two maybes pitted against each-other.
>may be a reasonable explanation
There is, this kind of result has been predicted for years. It's a very simple one when your silly conspiracy theory is complicated, involving people hiding results and getting different results across the country and cheating in states that were going to go so hard in one way or another that there's no point in exposing yourself in doing it. Your explanation involves thousands of moving parts and the complicity of people who support Trump as well as the people Trump has appointed and continually has failed in court, across many courts. Because there's no evidence, just speculation. You're hinging your evidence on the outcome being weird, but the outcome isn't weird.
Imagine, if you will, all those thousands parts just having the good luck to work in Biden’s favour at the right time. That’s not likely. Not everything works, so you’d want multiple redundancies to make sure you pull it off.
If this fraud was true, it’s very likely that a whole bunch of fraud has not been caught yet. Meaning that, potentially, millions of people are in on the fraud, as there would have to be a few hundred thousand people in on the currently known fraud.
All the fraud was outsourced to Zimbabwe, that's why nobody detected it, they just haven't looked.
No, just that a poorly-handled election with too few safeguards and security measures lead to various abuses and failures in a thousand different ways, exactly the way one would expect, and in fact, what the media has been warning us about before they needed to change the message.
It's more likely that multiple people just acted on their own to influence the election in their favor. Some people switched votes via duplication. Some people counted multiple votes in the scanner. Some people printed duplicate ballots. Some people registered fake addresses so that they could vote multiple times, some people worked for Dominion, etc...
Kind of like how terrorist cells work. They don't necessarily have a common plan, but a common purpose.
And yet no fraud has been found. Right now you're arguing an expected result is a hint of fraud because you didn't expect it, and used incorrect numbers to back it up. That's why the common refrain has been "come back with evidence" Show votes that were switched, show a box getting stuffed. If dozens of groups acted independently, you'd have things like the Texas lady or whoever it was, you'd have to show dozens of these small time actors. As it stands, you're accepting or rejecting facts based on how they fit your conspiracy theory.
None of the evidence has ever been tested in court. This is not the same as "no fraud has been found".
With that logic, the 2016 election was obviously filled with fraud. How do you explain the irregularities of both Pennsylvania and Michigan voting republican when they voted democratic the last 6 elections and Wisconsin voted democratic the last 7 elections? What's the chances of those 3 states ALL voting republican in the same election?
It's been reliably removed by the plaintiffs themselves, it's not a good look.
You're the only one making the leap from "irregular" to "obviously filled with fraud".
No, you've been claiming "obviously filled with fraud" for 90% of this thread. Only in the last page or 2 have you backpedaled to "irregular." You do realize this isn't a chan board and we can all see previous posts, right?
- Status