Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
- Status
- Feb 7, 2011
- 7,927
- 2,290
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Well I'm sure that everyone as rich as him does commit tax fraud. They pay teams of accountants a lot of money to make their tax fraud not look fraudulent.
Or the scanner didn't take them for various reasons, which anybody who's used a scanner knows happens all the time.
OK, put it this way: we have an action here (scanning more than once) that could possibly be fraud, or could possibly be innocent (because it's routine).
So, tell me this: if the video showed the lady scanning them just once, would you be requesting an investigation? That, too, is an action which could theoretically be fraud (say, she scanned them another time off-screen), or could be innocent (because it's routine). Both scenarios require you to be making assumptions, and choosing to interpret a routine action as supicious.
I'm sure that Houseman will be calling for Trump's arrest any minute now. This blatant pressure to commit election interference and voter fraud cannot go unpunished, right?
Of course not! Its not Election Fraud when Republicans do it, only Democrats. Remember Election Fraud only occurs when Democrats win and Republicans would rather they not have. Trump can't commit Election Fraud because he's not a Democrat, and he didn't win.
That's a straw man - I didn't say racism. I just said the police stopping, searching and generally harassing black people. I understand that you think it's good they do that, as I already said.
What I think is that this is open to evaluation, as I'm not the one trying to wriggle out of a tight spot with sophistry and vague generalisations. So please, identify for us what was specifically wrong with the many, various decisions made by judges, on a case by case basis.
Do you believe everything Donald Trump says or writes on Twitter? Interesting.
I mean, I already brought up that he opened a commission in 2017 to review the 2016 election, stacked it with people who assert electoral fraud, and then shut it down when it didn't find anything bar a few individual cases. In short, yes, he really does have power to make things happen. Donald Trump really does have liberty to appoint people to run these departments and agencies, and he can also appoint people who will agree to make their organisation investigate. The limits of his power are more reached in his inability to force investigators in these organisations to come out with the answers he wants.
I think you're missing the point here. Where there's a video of a policeman attacking a random member of the public who has been causing no trouble, or kneeling on a man's neck against procedure and he dies, or beating someone to a pulp for no apparent reason, that's very good evidence of police brutality.
In contrast, you haven't presented one, single piece of evidence that even make a good case that fraud has occurred: effectively, you've presented nothing but hearsay, most of it from biased and unreliable sources.
Well, it's my opinion that the whole election should be investigated on multiple fronts for multiple reasons, regardless of the existence of this video. Analysis of the data suggests that the election was tampered with. Perhaps this was one of the ways this tampering occurred. Maybe not.
But no, if the only evidence anyone had is just a video showing the lady scanning them just once, that wouldn't prompt an investigation, even if she could have scanned them another time off-screen.
That's the definition of suspicious. It could be innocent, it could not be, you don't know.
I already said to throw his vote out. Throw all the illegal votes out.
No
From Wikipedia: "On June 28, 2017, Kobach wrote a letter in conjunction with the Department of Justice requesting personal voter information from every state.[5] The request was met with significant bipartisan backlash and a majority of states refused to supply some or all of the information, citing privacy concerns or state laws."
So, yep, stonewalled. If he was so powerful, then why couldn't he get the data he needed?
Yes I have, but you've ignored them. The most recent is an analysis of the New York Time's data showing Trump votes going down instead of up:
DATA SCIENTISTS SHOCKING ELECTION TESTIMONY
Data scientists bring forward evidence showing the manipulations and vote swings on election night. This testimony was given before the Georgia State Senate. https://gofile.io/d/itc4XN https://gofile.
rumble.com
---
Last edited:
Please do not insult other users.
I love this about you! I mean I know you're a sexist troll, but this just sums up how bad you are at this! You're whole shtick is indignation at perceived illegal actions and a complicit Justice system, and when ask what you actually object to its just "No" presumably because you don't actually remember any of the cases nor the reasons they were dismissed, and definitely because you have no understanding of the American legal system.
To be fair whatever forums you parrot from could just not have them on their front page, and re-reading things is hard.
I just think its great you've gone on this whole song and dance for almost 100 pages, and when asked for something as simple as the thesis statement of your objections you're only response is a one-word "No". Just sums up the debate in one concise word.
It's "Your", not "You're".
But no, that's not what was asked of me. What was asked of me was to explain what I disagreed with for "the many, various decisions made by judges, on a case by case basis". And that would take way too long. I have videogames to play.
You're right, that was a misspell of mine. Nice catch, I missed it.
Goodness no, its not like you believe an illegal cabal is taking control of the US nuclear arsenal having illegally, with the help of thousands of conspirators, removed tens of millions of votes from the US presidential election while the whole world watched. I mean Yellow might be Sus, and then things would really get serious.
Good thing Captain America didn't have a Switch, or Hydra would have just taken over the world. Real patriot you are.
Oh good, so I can add either "Un-America" or "Not-Patriot" to your opinions on American politics. Just out of curiosity, not that I trust you to be honest, but are you an American citizen? I would guess not, given your understanding of America law...and politics...and voting...and procedures...and courts...and elections.
Oooh, ooh, I got one of my own. And he comes with laws and such!
So scanning the ballots once is suspicious, then. Why do you not want us to investigate suspicious behaviour?
What I said was:
"Well, it's my opinion that the whole election should be investigated on multiple fronts for multiple reasons, regardless of the existence of this video. Analysis of the data suggests that the election was tampered with. Perhaps this was one of the ways this tampering occurred. Maybe not.
But no, if the only evidence anyone had is just a video showing the lady scanning them just once, that wouldn't prompt an investigation, even if she could have scanned them another time off-screen."
Just using legally dismissed claims of tampering isn't the same as proving tampering.
Just using legally dismissed claims of tampering isn't the same as proving tampering.
Post 4767
- Status