Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)

[Vicofthevoid]

Careful, y'all argue with these twits too much and they're gonna suck up all the Copium, then there won't be enough left for the rest of the cult

 

[Houseman]

Careful, y'all argue with these twits too much and they're gonna suck up all the Copium, then there won't be enough left for the rest of the cult

#2,781

 

[Vicofthevoid]

#2,781

And? It's not like you have the capacity for reasoning that the good lord gave a stale corn chip.

 

[Houseman]

And? It's not like you have the capacity for reasoning that the good lord gave a stale corn chip.

It's just because you said the word "copium" and there's a comic I found amusing that also featured the word, that's all.


---
And now the news:

And also the video I posted on the previous page

 

[Vicofthevoid]

People winning stupid prizes for playing stupid games isn't news, it's karma.

Also, obligatory fucking lol, Breitbart. Because Breitbart isn't news, it's digital toilet paper.

 

[Houseman]

Timestamped video
GA recount nov 13-14
Look at a poll worker harass another for not staying six feet apart.... while not staying six feet apart from the person she's talking to.

Also followed by other views from inside and another worker corroborating the "six-feet" harassment around the 1 hour mark and that there's no monitors for the people entering the final numbers being tallied. There's also video of that clearly showing a lack of any observsation.

Also a shredding truck from Nov 20th. "AL Absentee Ballot" can clearly be seen among the documents that are to be shredded.

 

[Kwak]

Timestamped video
...

 

[Houseman]

I'm sure that would be a sick burn if I spoke deutsch

 

[Kwak]

I'm sure that would be a sick burn if I spoke deutsch

No, just a fairly average mild burn.

 

[Agema]

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

1960 was a long time ago, and US election procedure is vastly tighter now than it was then. And even then, much reported on since, there is insufficient evidence that the fraud was enough to swing the election.

But in terms of things recurring from the past, I note from that article:
"Most important, the Republican Party made a veritable crusade of undoing the results. Even if they ultimately failed, party leaders figured, they could taint Kennedy’s victory, claim he had no mandate for his agenda, galvanize the rank and file, and have a winning issue for upcoming election"

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.

The people didn't want Trump. They never did. He lost the popular vote twice, just one of those times through a quirk of the electoral college, he won the presidency. Then he managed to antagonise even more voters, and suffered a heavier popular defeat that was beyond the vagaries of the electoral college system to save him.

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.

Let's remember that Trump won the election in 2016 and occupied the White House. He created a commission in 2017 specifically to examine fraud, chaired by Trump loyalists, loaded in favour of Republicans and including aggressive advocates of a fraud narrative. Trump then disbanded the commission in 2018, results undisclosed. However, one of the commission - frustrated by the lack of transparency the vice-chair was operating with - went to court to force disclosure. Documentation then revealed that the committee found nothing except a few isolated cases by individuals, which could not hope to swing an election. It was then announced the matter was to be handed to the Department of Homeland Security to continue... except the Trump administration declined to do so.

What are we supposed to make of this, that even Trump's own kangaroo court can't find this massive fraud? And that Trump's administration then does not pursue this matter it thinks is oh-so-terribly important through any other channels?

Someone definitely has dropped a fraud analysis when it wouldn't show the results they wanted. Except that person is not Hillary Clinton, but Donald Trump.

 

[Seanchaidh]

No, just a fairly average mild burn.

A chemical burn?

Someone definitely has dropped a fraud analysis when it wouldn't show the results they wanted. Except that person is not Hillary Clinton, but Donald Trump.

It's true; "Russia Russia Russia" is another species of excuse.

 

[Cheetodust]

1960 was a long time ago, and US election procedure is vastly tighter now than it was then. And even then, much reported on since, there is insufficient evidence that the fraud was enough to swing the election.

But in terms of things recurring from the past, I note from that article:
"Most important, the Republican Party made a veritable crusade of undoing the results. Even if they ultimately failed, party leaders figured, they could taint Kennedy’s victory, claim he had no mandate for his agenda, galvanize the rank and file, and have a winning issue for upcoming election"



The people didn't want Trump. They never did. He lost the popular vote twice, just one of those times through a quirk of the electoral college, he won the presidency. Then he managed to antagonise even more voters, and suffered a heavier popular defeat that was beyond the vagaries of the electoral college system to save him.



Let's remember that Trump won the election in 2016 and occupied the White House. He created a commission in 2017 specifically to examine fraud, chaired by Trump loyalists, loaded in favour of Republicans and including aggressive advocates of a fraud narrative. Trump then disbanded the commission in 2018, results undisclosed. However, one of the commission - frustrated by the lack of transparency the vice-chair was operating with - went to court to force disclosure. Documentation then revealed that the committee found nothing except a few isolated cases by individuals, which could not hope to swing an election. It was then announced the matter was to be handed to the Department of Homeland Security to continue... except the Trump administration declined to do so.

What are we supposed to make of this, that even Trump's own kangaroo court can't find this massive fraud? And that Trump's administration then does not pursue this matter it thinks is oh-so-terribly important through any other channels?

Someone definitely has dropped a fraud analysis when it wouldn't show the results they wanted. Except that person is not Hillary Clinton, but Donald Trump.

Genuine queistion, do you think post 4370 is going to be the one that makes him go "Oh yeah, I see your point."?

 

[Agema]

Genuine queistion, do you think post 4370 is going to be the one that makes him go "Oh yeah, I see your point."?

I don't debate anything on the internet to change anyone's mind.

One thing you learn pretty quickly is that internet debate is nearly all just people shouting unshakable beliefs at each other, not a constructive intellectual exercise.

 

[gorfias]

1960 was a long time ago, and US election procedure is vastly tighter now than it was then.

Voting machines where glitches flip thousands of votes (on the times they were caught), mail in ballots that can be illegally harvested and/or manufactured? I think our election system is pretty bad now. Intentionally I think.

I have a huge problem with mail in voting, even if done securely. People are voting before there has even been a 1st debate. Voting is a civic duty as well as a right. This just seems wrong to me. We should, with very few exceptions, be voting as a people at around the same time with the same public information.

I just don't see it ever going away. If there has been a revolution by our elites, they apparently now have the power to install who they want, Democracy be damned. Why would they ever give that up?

 

[Hades]

I just don't see it ever going away. If there has been a revolution by our elites, they apparently now have the power to install who they want, Democracy be damned. Why would they ever give that up?

But they haven't. Trump's defeat proves the elites can't just install whoever they want. Trump has the white house, he had the attorney general as his personal crony, he had personally installed a conservative majority in the supreme court, he controlled the postal service through a crony and his party was in charge of several swing states. With all this power and influence the Trump administration still couldn't install Trump in office against the wishes of the electorate.

If anything this proves that even installing your cronies in important positions has its limitations when there's simply nothing that can be done to deny the inevitable. The elites in charge simply had no ability do install the candidate of their choosing. All those people would have gladly crowned Trump as president but there's simply nothing they could do thanks to that pesky electorate getting in the way.

 

[Silvanus]

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

What exactly do you want them to have access to that they don't?

They have access to voting records. Yet when its come to court, they've dropped the allegations of fraud, and retreated to purely procedural complaints which could've been contested before the election.

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.

Uhrm, no, if an official saw another official doing something untoward, the first official's neck wouldn't be on the line.

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?

This has already been covered and given extra context elsewhere in the thread. You've stripped that context away and just left the complainant's account.

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

...based on presumption. A presumption that you apply to literally every person in that position. Meaning there's nothing they could have done.

"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.

So you'll only stop believing its a conspiracy if the complainants themselves say they were wrong? Surely you see this is an impossible standard of evidence. If a Republican claims something and sticks to it, their tale is automatically taken to be true. A... standard that is only applied to Republicans. And meanwhile, anybody non-affiliated gets the opposite treatment: automatic assumption of guilt, lying, conspiracy.

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!"

People did clap. This has already been covered and given context. Stop just regurgitating it without context.

He can't force testimony. But we're talking about an operation of tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of non-affiliated, non-party-member workers. And Giuliani is expecting us to believe they're literally all either cowards or conspirators.

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.

I'm tired of correcting the record whenever you attribute some bollocks to me, so I'm not going to bother any more. I'll just leave it at: i didn't say this, this is a lie.

 

[Cheetodust]

I don't debate anything on the internet to change anyone's mind.

One thing you learn pretty quickly is that internet debate is nearly all just people shouting unshakable beliefs at each other, not a constructive intellectual exercise.

But then like why though. Apart from like 2 people here everyone agrees with you. If it is for the benefit of other observers all you do is give these guys more ground to argue. If you just stopped taking them seriously and arguing with them then they'd have no arguments to misrepresent.

 

[Avnger]

So you'll only stop believing its a conspiracy if the complainants themselves say they were wrong? Surely you see this is an impossible standard of evidence. If a Republican claims something and sticks to it, their tale is automatically taken to be true. A... standard that is only applied to Republicans. And meanwhile, anybody non-affiliated gets the opposite treatment: automatically assumption of guilt, lying, conspiracy.

It's not even this consistent though. Republicans are only given this standard when they agree with him. Republicans who disagree are thrown into the pile of others as RINOs or "deep state." There's been plenty of Republican federal, state, and county politicians and election representatives that were entirely ignored because they disagreed with this conspiracy theory.

 

[SilentPony]

It's not even this consistent though. Republicans are only given this standard when they agree with him. Republicans who disagree are thrown into the pile of others as RINOs or "deep state." There's been plenty of Republican federal, state, and county politicians and election representatives that were entirely ignored because they disagreed with this conspiracy theory.

See I don't even think its that. They know there was no election fraud. Trump himself may believe it, but that's because he's too fucking stupid to know better. But Barr? Giuliani? They know its all horseshit designed to trick the gullible and stupid, take up air time, and get donations. Its just another scam.
So its not about kicking out RINOs for not believing, its about getting rid of anyone who doesn't want to play ball, ie can't be bought off or Trump doesn't have blackmail on.

 

[Houseman]

I'm tired of correcting the record whenever you attribute some bollocks to me

I apologize, I really can't keep track of the difference between your arguments, SilentPony's arguments, Agema's arguments, and the arguments of all the other people in this topic.

What exactly do you want them to have access to that they don't?

They have access to voting records.

Anything that isn't already publicly available. Let's have every signature made public. Every address. Every absentee application. Every ballot. Matt Braynard had to fundraise and pay tens of thousands of dollars to get access to all the data that he used in his examination.

Uhrm, no, if an official saw another official doing something untoward, the first official's neck wouldn't be on the line.

I was thinking more of the "why aren't they coming out and saying anything about the evidence we've already seen?" question. Their necks are on the line if they admit that fraud happened on their watch.

But in your scenario, yes, if an honest official wanted to call out another official, their neck wouldn't be on the line.
They would just be dismissed by the other higher-ups who were in on it, like all the other workers who tried to speak up about what they saw, and were dismissed. Here's one example of that.

This has already been covered and given extra context elsewhere in the thread. You've stripped that context away and just left the complainant's account.

I don't remember any "context" that makes it okay to selectively enforce the rules with the intention to harm republicans and republicans only.

So you'll only stop believing its a conspiracy if the complainants themselves say they were wrong?

I'm just talking about this one video of the lady telling the other workers to "just count".

Even speaking generally, no. I'll stop believing it's a conspiracy if an actual investigation happens.

But we're talking about an operation of tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of non-affiliated, non-party-member workers. And Giuliani is expecting us to believe they're literally all either cowards or conspirators.

Nobody is expecting you to believe that.

If those independents want to give testimony that contradicts the testimony we've already heard, they're free to do that. But they haven't.

By all means, let's pit contradicting testimony against each-other in a court of law and let the truth come out. Only one side doesn't want that. Republicans are happy to have their day in court, aren't they?


---

And now the news:

TL;DR, if you're making fake names for fake voters so that you can commit voter fraud, you're going to be making up common names like "John Smith" a lot. But you're probably not going to account for how popular or unpopular that surname is going to be in the specific region, so you'll be leaving telltale signs of fraud.