Election 2020 Election 2020: It's (almost) over! (maybe...possibly...ahh who are we kidding, it's 2020!)

[Battlegrinder]

See, this is the problem with most of the "evidence", it's just stuff like Sunhawk is saying. "I worked the polls, and I saw something weird, IDK what it was, they probably weren't supposed to do it". That's bad, yes, but it's also not definative evidence of fraud, it's just as, if not more, likely to be proof that officials in charge were inept and disorganized.

You can't use such weak evidence as the basis of a claim that fraud has been proven.

 

[JagerIV]

See, this is the problem with most of the "evidence", it's just stuff like Sunhawk is saying. "I worked the polls, and I saw something weird, IDK what it was, they probably weren't supposed to do it". That's bad, yes, but it's also not definative evidence of fraud, it's just as, if not more, likely to be proof that officials in charge were inept and disorganized.

You can't use such weak evidence as the basis of a claim that fraud has been proven.

What do you think evidence looks like? Like, what initially exposed Bernie Madoff was someone running a simple model and determining that his books were impossible. At crazy Eddies, talking to any employee there you would probably have gotten a list of strange dealing, being paid under the table, and all sorts of crazyness.

The above is what evidence without an investigation by the police looks like. I'm sorry that secret conspirators don't hand out signed and notarized memo's explaining their attempt to break the law to random people.

And, more importantly of the above, the above is what is openly known, and it didn't matter. @LordSunhawk , by the sound of it, you being there as an observer was close to completely pointless, because you couldn't see some of the more important things, and the issues you did see you could do nothing about?

If my understanding of you story is correct, its serving an important point that the "controls" that supposedly make such skulldugary "impossible" are utterly impotent. Its pointing out that supposedly "impossible" things happen all the time, and that the controls supposedly their to stop these or control these things are fairly impotent.

 

[GoldRanger]

See, this is the problem with most of the "evidence", it's just stuff like Sunhawk is saying. "I worked the polls, and I saw something weird, IDK what it was, they probably weren't supposed to do it". That's bad, yes, but it's also not definative evidence of fraud, it's just as, if not more, likely to be proof that officials in charge were inept and disorganized.

You can't use such weak evidence as the basis of a claim that fraud has been proven.

And in a functional system, this weak/anecdotal evidence should have been enough to trigger a deeper, more professional investigation. Where's the FBI? Why is nobody investigating Dominion? On the contrary, it seems like the American political establishment is determined to deliberately look the other way and adamantly refuse to consider even the possibility of wrongdoing. It's extremely suspicious behavior in and of itself (not to mention a whole bunch of conspiracy theories waiting to be born).

 

[Captain X]

On another note, I was watching a stream that really pissed me off today. It was all about the election and its aftermath, especially Biden's inauguration. One of them on there essentially said "we can mark this as the day the United States ended."

The blackpill has always been too bitter to me, but for the love of God. Trumpers, you've lost a battle. The enemy took the field through trickery and dissension in your ranks, but you still have an army. The topic of conversation should be regroup and counterattack. Your big issue in that battle was your officer corps being a bit pozzed, which allowed your enemy to get one over on you. That can be solved by political fragging. Trump's policies were popular and all you need do, whilst making a fair amount of noise about electoral reform, is build on them. Then, one day, you will meet the enemy in battle again and defeat them this time.

Many important battles for the British Right were fought and lost before I was born. Yet here I am. Besides, as a patriot, not giving up on my country is sort of in the job description.

The reason people are saying that is that with there being obvious election fraud and the apparatus designed to address that simply ignoring that, elections, which are the basis of our representative republic, are entirely pointless - the Democrats, seemingly at the behest of communists, have seized control of the election apparatus, and elections will now always come out in their favor, no matter what. Most likely, the next step is going to be to either add DC and Puerto Rico as states to solidify a Democratic majority in the Senate, or to stuff the Supreme Court with Democrats who will then ignore the Constitution and just allow whatever the Democrats want. Democrats have already shown that what's in a constitution is completely irrelevant to them, as in several states they completely ignored what was in their state constitutions in order to alter election laws for the mail-in vote, as well as other shenanigans involving counting the ballots, including ignoring any court orders allowing observers in where they could actually observe the counting. Also, in MI, you had two state supreme court justices make a ruling that flew in the face of what was actually in their state constitution about how the governor can only be granted emergency powers from the legislature, and it is only because there were three Republicans on the bench that the court actually fulfilled its duty as a check on the governor's abuse of power in declaring herself to have emergency powers. We now have Democrats making lists of Trump supporters, we have an established history of them doxxing people who end up getting attacked or having their property vandalized, and we have the DHS making noise about "right-wing domestic terrorism" again. This is not a simple matter of "next time we'll get them," because there may not be a "next time," or if there is, there's basically no way to stop them from just cheating again. Likely we're going to be looking at our government hunting down anyone who represents a threat to them. We already see moves to purge Republicans from the ranks of the military under the guise of eliminating "right-wing extremism." And the funny thing is that I'm not even a Republican and am only really conservative on a few issues, but because anyone to the right of Marx is "right-wing" to them, I get lumped in with them.

 

[Terthna]

See, this is the problem with most of the "evidence", it's just stuff like Sunhawk is saying. "I worked the polls, and I saw something weird, IDK what it was, they probably weren't supposed to do it". That's bad, yes, but it's also not definative evidence of fraud, it's just as, if not more, likely to be proof that officials in charge were inept and disorganized.

You can't use such weak evidence as the basis of a claim that fraud has been proven.

By themselves? Perhaps not; but we could spend hours going over all the similarly "weak" evidence that supports the conclusion that extensive fraud occurred. Eventually, the strength of each individual piece of evidence is irrelevant; the sheer amount of credible evidence is enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that extensive fraud did occur. People have been sentenced to death with far weaker cases against them.

Not that any of that matters; because at the very least, all that evidence should have merited a full investigation, and the fact that the establishment refused to allow one to happen serves as the strongest proof that they cheated.

 

[Megadeath]

By themselves? Perhaps not; but we could spend hours going over all the similarly "weak" evidence that supports the conclusion that extensive fraud occurred. Eventually, the strength of each individual piece of evidence is irrelevant; the sheer amount of credible evidence is enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that extensive fraud did occur. People have been sentenced to death with far weaker cases against them.

Not that any of that matters; because at the very least, all that evidence should have merited a full investigation, and the fact that the establishment refused to allow one to happen serves as the strongest proof that they cheated.

No. No amount of "This guy on the internet says that he saw something that seemed suspicious." Is ever evidence. Least of all on an issue where tens of thousands of people have demonstrated quite clearly that they're perfectly willing to do far worse than lie on the 'net to support their cause and narrative.

The reason there was no investigation, is because there was no actual evidence to investigate. What exactly are they supposed to "investigate" when every claim turns out to be a lie or misunderstanding, and when there's not a shred of actual evidence? If there was evidence of fraud, why did even Trump's legal team repeatedly say there wasn't, and they weren't claiming fraud?

 

[Cherico]

No. No amount of "This guy on the internet says that he saw something that seemed suspicious." Is ever evidence. Least of all on an issue where tens of thousands of people have demonstrated quite clearly that they're perfectly willing to do far worse than lie on the 'net to support their cause and narrative.

The reason there was no investigation, is because there was no actual evidence to investigate. What exactly are they supposed to "investigate" when every claim turns out to be a lie or misunderstanding, and when there's not a shred of actual evidence? If there was evidence of fraud, why did even Trump's legal team repeatedly say there wasn't, and they weren't claiming fraud?

I trust sunhawk more then I trust you.

 

[Terthna]

I trust sunhawk more then I trust you.

I'd trust a ham sandwich more than Megadeath; the man seems to think that persistence and repetition are all that's needed to win an argument (well, that and a great deal of institutional support; which, unfortunately for him, he does not have on this particular forum), as opposed to any sort of objective fact.

 

[Megadeath]

I trust sunhawk more then I trust you.

That's neat. So rather than evidence, we can just go on our gut feeling and personal faith in anecdote, and that somehow overrides the fact that the Trump legal team couldn't prove fraud, indeed couldn't even find enough evidence to be willing to allege it in court? Your personal trust means more than the opinion of judges (From the long established to the trump appointed.) that such evidence as was presented was completely meaningless? You don't like me as much, so somehow the fact that every alt-right news outlet slandering Dominion was forced to issue a retraction because they had no evidence doesn't matter?

I honestly don't care how you feel about me. I'm interested in verifiable facts and evidence. What some random on the internet claims is neither of those things. See, watch; "I heard from a friend, who was totally there, that trump once molested a puppy to make a sack full of kittens cry." That's a claim. There is no evidence for the claim. The person making the claim doesn't magically turn a claim into evidence. I can repeat the claim a thousand times, but even if I do and get ten thousand other people to repeat it, it's still a claim, not evidence.

I'd trust a ham sandwich more than Megadeath; the man seems to think that persistence and repetition are all that's needed to win an argument (well, that and a great deal of institutional support; which, unfortunately for him, he does not have on this particular forum), as opposed to any sort of objective fact.

My entire argument is that there's a lack of evidence. How do you expect me to prove a negative? What evidence can be bought to prove a lack of fraud?

That's also especially rich coming from you, when your entire MO seems to be to throw out dishonest claims "The evidence was never heard, they just rejected every case for lack of standing!" or "They were overheard outright admitting that the main reason they refused to hear any case regarding the election, was because they were afraid of what the far-left mob would do if they stood in their way." and then completely ignoring it when people point out that you are entirely wrong.

Persistence and repetition are all you have, and that's why I'm making persistent and repetitive requests for evidence that you simply can't provide. If there's any evidence of fraud, or vote tampering, that doesn't take the form of "This guy said, after the fact." then feel free to set me and the entire American judicial system straight. I'm sure you're actually the sole voice of sanity, rather than a self deluding prat, whistling in the dark.

 

[Cherico]

That's neat. So rather than evidence, we can just go on our gut feeling and personal faith in anecdote, and that somehow overrides the fact that the Trump legal team couldn't prove fraud, indeed couldn't even find enough evidence to be willing to allege it in court? Your personal trust means more than the opinion of judges (From the long established to the trump appointed.) that such evidence as was presented was completely meaningless? You don't like me as much, so somehow the fact that every alt-right news outlet slandering Dominion was forced to issue a retraction because they had no evidence doesn't matter?

I honestly don't care how you feel about me. I'm interested in verifiable facts and evidence. What some random on the internet claims is neither of those things. See, watch; "I heard from a friend, who was totally there, that trump once molested a puppy to make a sack full of kittens cry." That's a claim. There is no evidence for the claim. The person making the claim doesn't magically turn a claim into evidence. I can repeat the claim a thousand times, but even if I do and get ten thousand other people to repeat it, it's still a claim, not evidence.


My entire argument is that there's a lack of evidence. How do you expect me to prove a negative? What evidence can be bought to prove a lack of fraud?

That's also especially rich coming from you, when your entire MO seems to be to throw out dishonest claims "The evidence was never heard, they just rejected every case for lack of standing!" or "They were overheard outright admitting that the main reason they refused to hear any case regarding the election, was because they were afraid of what the far-left mob would do if they stood in their way." and then completely ignoring it when people point out that you are entirely wrong.

Persistence and repetition are all you have, and that's why I'm making persistent and repetitive requests for evidence that you simply can't provide. If there's any evidence of fraud, or vote tampering, that doesn't take the form of "This guy said, after the fact." then feel free to set me and the entire American judicial system straight. I'm sure you're actually the sole voice of sanity, rather than a self deluding prat, whistling in the dark.

Sunhawk has over a period of months shown himself to be a respected member of the community, and one who debates in good faith. I've seen his charater and quite frankly he's earned my respect. I don't always agree with everything he says but he doesn't go around purposely slinging lies.

He's made an arrgument and its more convincing then your apeal to authority.

 

[Megadeath]

Sunhawk has over a period of months shown himself to be a respected member of the community, and one who debates in good faith. I've seen his charater and quite frankly he's earned my respect. I don't always agree with everything he says but he doesn't go around purposely slinging lies.

He's made an arrgument and its more convincing then your apeal to authority.

I mean, I have nothing but respect for him either, and I'm not actually accusing him specifically of lying. But even if literally everything he says is true and interpreted in the worst possible light, it's not evidence of voter fraud, or vote tampering.

He hasn't made an argument. He's made a claim. The difference is a claim is "X, happened" whilst an argument would be "Because of X, Y happened." The thing is, whilst I don't specifically doubt his claim, if it's used to support the argument that "Therefore there was voter fraud, on a large and systemic scale, and it materially effected the election result." it's simply not enough.

At that point, it literally is one guy saying "I promise, I saw this and I think that implies this other thing." and that is no more acceptable as an evidentiary standard for the argument that the election was fraudulent than it is for my counter claim that trump tortured puppies to make kittens sad. That you personally, on entirely subjective preference, trust one source over another is kinda meaningless.

 

[LordsFire]

That's neat. So rather than evidence, we can just go on our gut feeling and personal faith in anecdote, and that somehow overrides the fact that the Trump legal team couldn't prove fraud, indeed couldn't even find enough evidence to be willing to allege it in court? Your personal trust means more than the opinion of judges (From the long established to the trump appointed.) that such evidence as was presented was completely meaningless? You don't like me as much, so somehow the fact that every alt-right news outlet slandering Dominion was forced to issue a retraction because they had no evidence doesn't matter?

I honestly don't care how you feel about me. I'm interested in verifiable facts and evidence. What some random on the internet claims is neither of those things. See, watch; "I heard from a friend, who was totally there, that trump once molested a puppy to make a sack full of kittens cry." That's a claim. There is no evidence for the claim. The person making the claim doesn't magically turn a claim into evidence. I can repeat the claim a thousand times, but even if I do and get ten thousand other people to repeat it, it's still a claim, not evidence.


My entire argument is that there's a lack of evidence. How do you expect me to prove a negative? What evidence can be bought to prove a lack of fraud?

Did you actually watch the video testimony from the people who filed sworn affidavits?

The testimony of expert witnesses who watched the Dominion systems have their security violated?

The footage of not just poll watchers being kicked out, but the windows at counting stations getting blocked so people couldn't even look in from outside?

I did. That's why I believe there was mass fraud.

If there was fraud, but not enough to flip the election, we would still be seeing those who demonstrably, on video, with sworn testimony calling them out, committed fraud, being charged, tried, and convicted.

But we aren't.

Until you can show me the sworn testimonies, not just claims, but people swearing under penalty of perjury, that the other people who have sworn under penalty of perjury, I'm not going to even begin to be persuaded that my eyes are lying to me.

 

[GoldRanger]

I mean, I have nothing but respect for him either, and I'm not actually accusing him specifically of lying. But even if literally everything he says is true and interpreted in the worst possible light, it's not evidence of voter fraud, or vote tampering.

No, it's not. But it's suspicious enough to merit further investigation. The fact that one wasn't, and isn't going to be conducted is a disgrace.

 

[lordmcdeath]

Two things. One the threat of perjury is basically worseless as its nearly impossible to prove both prior knowledge and intent. Only 270 people are convicted per year, in a country of more than 300 million. It so rare as to be nearly nonexistent. And the sheer number of those sworn affidavits meant the individual jeopardy was basically nonexistent.

Secondly, they could easily be investigating right now. Republicans control most of the legislatures and it would be simple enough for them to arrange those investigations and refer it to state authorities.

If there was massive fraud why stop now, after all? But they aren't to the best of my knowledge. Which sort of reveals what most Republican politicians think of the accusations.

 

[LindyAF]

You heard it here first, perjury is rare because there are a lot of people in the country!

How is population size at all relevant? Wouldn't the only relevant number be the number of people or sworn statements that are investigated for perjury and either a guilty or not guilty verdict is reached?

 

[Megadeath]

You heard it here first, perjury is rare because there are a lot of people in the country!

How is population size at all relevant? Wouldn't the only relevant number be the number of people or sworn statements that are investigated for perjury and either a guilty or not guilty verdict is reached?

Several of those sworn affidavits were specifically found to be implausible, impossible, self contradictory or simply confused. Yet, despite courts finding that several of the sworn affidavits were likely untrue and quite possibly intentionally so, there was no prosecutions for perjury.

The relevant number would be "How many of the pinky swear promises have anything else to back them?" And the answer is basically zero.

 

[What's the sitch?]

Let's look at this claims specifically, because it's absolute garbage nonsense. The number of poll watchers per party was supposed to be 134, but both Republicans and Democrats brought more than that and had more than 200 each. Those poll watchers were inside when the the windows were blocked because additional Republicans were pressing themselves up against the windows, banging on them and chanting loudly as well as trying to film inside from the outside, which is not allowed. There was never a time when there were not a bunch of Republican poll watchers in the room.

If you want people don't take your claims seriously, stop pushing lies just because they fits your beliefs.

If there really was no cheating, why instead of allaying the fears of half of America do they instead make it even easier for it to happen next time?

How does poll watching even help or have any effectiveness with the social distancing, plastic and plastic glare blocking vision, or with things happening electronically and or after hours. It would be like trying to spell check something in another language.

 

[Greengrass]

If there really was no cheating, why instead of allaying the fears of half of America do they instead make it even easier for it to happen next time?

How does poll watching even help or have any effectiveness with the social distancing, plastic and plastic glare blocking vision, or with things happening electronically and or after hours. It would be like trying to spell check something in another language.

Because the things Republicans want to do to "prevent cheating" (which again, no massive fraud case was ever shown solid evidence of and dozens of cases on the topic were thrown out, even by Trump-appointed judges) also make it more difficult for people to vote, particularly minorities.

I'll give an example, from Texas. The Texas Secretary of State sent out a list of 95000 people that it claimed weren't citizens to remove from voter rolls, because at one point years back they had said they weren't citizens. But it turns out that (surprise!) you can actual become a citizen of the United States and register to vote even though you weren't a citizen before that. Tens of thousands of people on the list were shown to be citizens and legally allowed to vote before the whole thing was scrapped.

Another example, from North Carolina. The North Carolina voting law, allegedly to protect against fraud, deliberately chose restrictions that were most likely to affect black people.

“Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans,” Motz wrote. “Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist.”

By all actual evidence, voter fraud is extremely rare. Striking voter rolls, forcing ID laws, etc are likely to disenfranchise far more people than the actual number of false votes. If voting restrictions stop a whole bunch of lawful voters from exercising their Constitutional right to vote in an attempt to stop an extremely tiny amount of fraud, is that really better?

 

[Airedale260]

I would argue that Farange's split strategy is massively more viable in the loose coalitions of the British parliamentary system as opposed to the two-party establishment equilibrium of the American system.

Uh, the British system is also FPTP, actually, and their parties are largely the same way ours are. Witness what we saw with the Tea Party, the DSA, and the populist bent in current U.S. politics. It’s already prov

Did you actually watch the video testimony from the people who filed sworn affidavits?

The testimony of expert witnesses who watched the Dominion systems have their security violated?

The footage of not just poll watchers being kicked out, but the windows at counting stations getting blocked so people couldn't even look in from outside?

I did. That's why I believe there was mass fraud.

If there was fraud, but not enough to flip the election, we would still be seeing those who demonstrably, on video, with sworn testimony calling them out, committed fraud, being charged, tried, and convicted.

But we aren't.

Until you can show me the sworn testimonies, not just claims, but people swearing under penalty of perjury, that the other people who have sworn under penalty of perjury, I'm not going to even begin to be persuaded that my eyes are lying to me.

Several of those sworn affidavits were specifically found to be implausible, impossible, self contradictory or simply confused. Yet, despite courts finding that several of the sworn affidavits were likely untrue and quite possibly intentionally so, there was no prosecutions for perjury.

The relevant number would be "How many of the pinky swear promises have anything else to back them?" And the answer is basically zero.

Yeah, the thing with “penalty of perjury” is that as stated earlier, the perjurer has to know they’re lying. It’s why they stipulate “to the best of my belief” in statements where you sign that you’re not lying.

More importantly, humans are notoriously fault prone. Whether it’s erroneous memories, confusion over what they’re witnessing, or a whole host of other things, it’s why eyewitness testimony is considered the least reliable form of evidence.

And as for the court cases in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, they were in fact heard, and in both cases the Trump campaign (not lawyers acting independently but the campaign itself) accepted without argument that there was no meaningful fraud that changed the outcome. They were given the opportunity to make their arguments by the judges, who were understandably a bit taken aback as to why the campaign lawyers (including Giuliani) were conceding this point so readily. Of course, statements made in court are subject to much stricter scrutiny than affidavits filed by random people, and there are penalties for a lawyer making false claims in court even unknowingly.

 

[Terthna]

BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Accurate List of 2020 Election Fraud Cases Shows 81 Cases Total, 30 Still Active - And NOT ONE SINGLE COURT Has Allowed Evidence to be Argued | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

The 2020 election will go down as arguably the greatest fraud in world history. The tremendously popular incumbent candidate, President Trump, was easily winning the race on election night in a landslide and then suddenly multiple states took a break, quit counting, and by the end of the week...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

We haven't just lost the vote; we lost the courts too. Not one allowed evidence to be argued; that's insane.