Oh hush. It's literally a few urban centers. Like, my state is basically Philly and Pittsburgh vs everyone else and the cities won.
Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
- Status
So what, if the facts aren't enough to convict you just press for something else? If there were fraudulent votes you should have the guts to follow that link.
And what exactly is evidence? Do you know the percentage of people who'd attest that angels, or aliens, are real in the U.S.? A statement doesn't mean jack, it is circumstantial at best and hearsay at worst. Get something real then we can talk. Until then Trump and his lawsuits can sod off.
Well, the plaintiffs aren't the FBI, and they don't have their resources. The only thing they have is what they can get. They don't have any authority to arrest and interrogate people or seize evidence.
They also have a time limit.
I think it's actually more akin to racial profiling: "We need to rigorously investigate whether people might be committing crimes - but only those guys, and not us."
And hey, investigate 10 Democrats for every Republican, you can manufacture results to splash over the headlines showing that Democrats commit more crime. Are all these Republican states launching full, microscopic-detail audits of their own elections?
Yes, it would make sense to investigate where the crimes happen, as opposed to where they don't happen.
So, you're arguing that they cannot find enough proof to motivate an actual investigation?
That aside, you statement that "they have what they can get." implies a massive problem, doesn't it? If we ask people to come forward in relations to election fraud, or vote tampering, of course the only people we're going to get are people who think they know something about election fraud or vote tampering. For every person who think they saw something suspicious you'll have hundreds, if not thousands, who saw absolutely nothing out of the ordinary, despite being in the same location.
It doesn't really meet the standard of good evidence.
*looks at the four solid years of "he won, get over it" and "Trump Derangement Syndrome"*
So, you're left with two choices: continue to dig yourself into ever sillier conspiracy theories about how a person who everyone complained about for years lost, or...
No, but as an aside, I'll argue that it is not on the injured party to gather evidence and conduct an investigation.
If you got shot, do you think that the burden should fall on you to do forensic analysis and prove who it was who shot you?
As I mentioned, this is not an investigation conducted by law enforcement, so yes, that's to be expected.
If you want "good evidence", then you need to conduct an official investigation backed by the proper authorities.
But no crime nor history of crime has yet to be proven here. These places are just as guilty as any place where Republicans usually lead in the polls. The only difference is that the democrats do not seem to treat these elections like elections are treated in banana republics, which Trump has been doing since 2016. Claiming you can only lose due to fraud while polls and the vast majority of analysts predict you will lose (which they were unexpectedly wrong about in 2016) is displaying a total disregard towards the democratic process and extremely toxic. Donald Trump truly made America a Great Banana Republic in the eyes of the entire world.
And if you want someone, anyone, to conduct an investigation you need to present something. Any case depends on someone presenting some sort of claim or evidence. You need to make the claim to an actual authority that a crime happened and that investigation is necessary. Unless of course it is a civil suit.
The people behind these suits aren't bringing anything that can motivate a real investigation, or perhaps those investigations keep running into walls built on facts, and not the insane claims of biased agents.
But you're forgetting, the fact they lost the election IS the evidence that there's been a crime. Republicans are like spoiled children who flip the board when they're losing. They were okay to go along with Democracy, so long as black people didn't count and they always won. Now we have a situation where "urban centers" voted en mass so Biden won. And that's against the rules Republicans assumed everyone was playing by.
What is proven is defined by a court of law, and as of yet, no court of law has investigated the claims themselves.
Well the democrats are free to hold their own hearings on election fraud in these republican counties and vote centers. They're free to allege that republicans kept democrat observers at a distance and locked them out while they counted ballots in secret. They're free to testify in front of senators and judges about the fraud they witnessed. But they aren't doing that.
AFAIK, all these have been civil suits. Nobody is accusing any one specific individual of any sort of tampering.
There have been like, 5 public hearings so far, called for by the legislature that received all these complaints, so it seems that people are investigating.
Just not the police.
Trump files motion to argue in person before U.S. Supreme Court that he won election
If the justices let Trump join a Texas lawsuit, it would create the extraordinary circumstance of a president asking the top court to decide that the millions of vo…
nationalpost.com
OH YES PLEASE! Now I hope the court takes up the case. I wanna see the great, bestest deal maker of all time struggle to speak and soil his diaper in the highest court of the land!
Ok, so there is no criminal, just some sort of organized effort to systematically undermine the election, but we have no idea who might be behind it, and despite the fact that tampering with votes is a federal crime we cannot actually accuse anyone. Seems legit.
And were any of those hearings held by people who could motivate an investigation or were they held solely by people with a vested interest in casting doubt on the results of the election?
If you don't push for an investigation you won't have one. Get Rudy or Donald on tape calling for a federal investigation into a specific claim of interference or fraud, until then they're just spewing bullshit and trying to sow doubt.
To add to this story;
Although I doubt that this will lead to anything, it's nice to see someone speak up on an official level.
No, the people won. It's "1 person, 1 vote" not "1 square mile, 1 vote". You're literally whining about the minority of voters who live in rural areas not being able to control the majority of people in the state.
That's not how it works. Just because they aren't alleging that there are criminals responsible for this, it doesn't mean there aren't any.
It just means they're on a time limit and have to be selective.
Yes. They're congressmen and senators. They're drawing up petitions now. I think, ultimately, that power lies in the hands of the governor.
No, I'm not. I'm disputing the person pretending that the cities the majority lives in are referred to as urban for the purpose of racial overtones. "A few urban centers" means "a few urban centers" because that's the truth, not "non-whites" as Agema is suggesting.
Frankly, I just don't trust a significant number of Republicans to not be thinking that.
Like I said, why this focus on a few urban areas? There's no more evidence of substantial fraud in them than there are in rural areas, just a lot of desperately flailing accusations (mostly of which have already collapsed in ignominy). And like I said, is Texas doing a comprehensive audit of its own election? And Missouri, and all the others? What makes their election any more reliable?
This is a farce, and an insulting one at that.
Because that's where the vote spikes happened, and where all the testimony from witnesses (what you call flailing accusations) have been coming from.
However, their argument isn't directed against these "urban centers", it's about the state-wide (allegedly) unconstitutional measures, so you're kind of tilting at windmills.
- Status