Breaking News Time Magazine openly admits to a bi-partisan, elite lead rigging ("fortifying") of the election

[Rocinante]

No problem, ask and ye shall receive:

Video does not provide evidence of election fraud in Detroit

A newly published video from the Gateway Pundit appears to show a van from the city dropping off ballots. It is not evidence of fraud.

www.freep.com

Video purporting to show election fraud at Detroit's TCF Center ... doesn't

www.deadlinedetroit.com

Weeks after vote, 13 fake fraud claims persist in Michigan. Here’s the truth. | Bridge Michigan

President Trump and his supporters continue to spread falsehoods. What you need to know about voting equipment, software glitches, ballot dumps and whether there are more voters than residents in Detroit (not by a long-shot)

www.bridgemi.com

See, unlike when I ask for cites for claims, I actually *back them up*. I've repeatedly asked for proof of these from more than one source and all I get are crickets, then see more posts regurgitating the same claims before I make a request and get ignored again.

So...got anything else other than some hilariously shoddy work that got looked over and dismissed as trash by everyone with any actual knowledge of how these things work? Oh, sorry, of course they're all "sheeple" or "deep state actors," right?

All your links have is some guy saying "I swear these were totes legit"

And points out that the deadline of 8pm if for voters to turn in their ballots. Something we already covered earlier here.

The issue is that people were denying this ever even happened, it happened during a shift change in the middle of the night, in the same voting center that kicked out observers and covered up their windows.

Nothing suspicious here at all right?

 

[JagerIV]

This is the stuff they're publicly admitting, with pride.

The stuff about the riots is the most damning over anything else.

I did have some questions how closely they had them on a leash and how directly they could direct them. This shows that control is tight. Which might make people hoping Biden is going to turn on them, less real. Theres a material difference between a force of nature that you can somewhat direct (dams to move the flood) vs an army your in full control over.

I mean, I guess the nazis did eventually purge the brownshirts, but you have to keep in mind that that involved maybe 100-400 brownshirts out of an organization of 2 million, which still had a million prople by 1938, and the SA was backed up by the SS by that point. So, the 100 top most independent commuists who wont conform the establishment is not BLM going away, or them getting all that much more moderate or less tyrannical.

 

[Airedale260]

All your links have is some guy saying "I swear these were totes legit"

And points out that the deadline of 8pm if for voters to turn in their ballots. Something we already covered earlier here.

The issue is that people were denying this ever even happened, it happened during a shift change in the middle of the night, in the same voting center that kicked out observers and covered up their windows.

Nothing suspicious here at all right?

Uh, no, the deadline to *cast* votes is 8pm, same as at the polls. In this particular instance, it's because they're collected at various points and then brought into the election office, just as if they were being collected from the actual polling sites. That means they won't all be delivered at 8pm on the dot or all at the same time, because that's a logistical impossibility.

Doing otherwise would be a violation of the Equal Protection clause. Seriously if you're going to claim "the law says X".

Seriously, this was looked at by people from *both* sides of the aisle, who said "yeah these fraud claims are bullshit." Including multiple witnesses who were approached to claim fraud and said, "Uh, no, these people have no idea what the hell actually happened."

Nice try, though.

 

[JasonSanjo]

Sorry to just jump in like this, @Airedale260, but did you actually read the articles you just linked?

The first one, from Freep, cites a single statement made in regards to claims made back during the election about Detroit voting fraud. It doesn't actually address the video itself at all except in passing. Now, I am not familiar with Freep, but are they usually this hilariously bad and lazy when doing basic fact-checking and logical analysis? Because this is a level of "quality" that would give a student a failing grade on an assignment in middle school in most countries around the world.

The second article, from Deadlinedetroit, simply references the Freep article without adding anything of their own, and is thus equally hilariously bad while also being even lazier.

The third article does not reference the video at all, and is from back in December 2020, in reference to claims made back then, when the video was not available. In other words, regardless of the actual quality of said article, it is equally as hilariously bad when addressing the subject of the newly-released video since... well, it doesn't have anything to do with said video. You may as well have posted a link to a documentary on sloths.

I'm not sure what you believe constitutes counter-evidence but none of this is it.

 

[Airedale260]

Sorry to just jump in like this, @Airedale260, but did you actually read the articles you just linked?

The first one, from Freep, cites a single statement made in regards to claims made back during the election about Detroit voting fraud. It doesn't actually address the video itself at all except in passing. Now, I am not familiar with Freep, but are they usually this hilariously bad and lazy when doing basic fact-checking and logical analysis? Because this is a level of "quality" that would give a student a failing grade on an assignment in middle school in most countries around the world.

The second article, from Deadlinedetroit, simply references the Freep article without adding anything of their own, and is thus equally hilariously bad while also being even lazier.

The third article does not reference the video at all, and is from back in December 2020, in reference to claims made back then, when the video was not available. In other words, regardless of the actual quality of said article, it is equally as hilariously bad when addressing the subject of the newly-released video since... well, it doesn't have anything to do with said video. You may as well have posted a link to a documentary on sloths.

I'm not sure what you believe constitutes counter-evidence but none of this is it.

"Freep" is the Detroit Free Press, AKA the local paper of record. I tend to go for the local sources since they're the ones plugged in. The second one was added for clarification since it's in plain English what happened.

The third one, it's I believe #6 or 7 on the list, unless there's more than one allegation of a van going in and getting dismissed than I'm aware of, which is possible.

Still, it's far more effort than I get from anyone around here when I challenge them. Make your own judgments based on this.

 

[JasonSanjo]

I'm sorry to say, Airedale, but "effort" is irrelevant if it doesn't actually support the intended goal. If anything, the "effort" you've put forth here only showcases that, at the present time, no one has any sort of actual counter-evidence to the video. Now, this state of affairs may of course change in the future, but perhaps you should wait around until actual counter-evidence is provided rather than cite articles that are, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant?

 

[Rocinante]

Seriously. The links say the deadline to cast ballots is 8pm. We covered that.

The only thing disputing the video is a quote from some guy. Which if we are accusing them of fraud, why would we accept the quote from a guy who's probably in on it, as counter evidence?

 

[Airedale260]

I'm sorry to say, Airedale, but "effort" is irrelevant if it doesn't actually support the intended goal. If anything, the "effort" you've put forth here only showcases that, at the present time, no one has any sort of actual counter-evidence to the video. Now, this state of affairs may of course change in the future, but perhaps you should wait around until actual counter-evidence is provided rather than cite articles that are, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant?

Oh, hey, look, here is more:

Detroit Poll Supervisors Call Trump's Allegations of Election Fraud 'Absolutely Untrue' - WDET 101.9 FM

Donald Trump refuses to concede the presidential election and his campaign filed a flurry of lawsuits over how the vote was counted in Detroit. Chris Thomas, who helped oversee voting and poll challenges, weighs in on what happened during Detroit's vote count.

wdet.org

^Local news radio station

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/Scanned-from-a-Xerox-Multifunction-Printer.pdf

^Copy of the actual docket of the court case, which is a legal document and therefore has to be accurate under penalty of felony.

What the affidavits to stop Detroit ballot count claimed, and how they were rebutted

Filings include claims about late-arriving absentee ballots, 'preponderance of dishonesty, irregularities, and fraudulent activities'; judge finds many claims 'rife with speculation'

www.detroitnews.com

^More news coverage of the incident as well as the other allegations involving the city.

I can keep going but considering I’ve provided multiple sources, been challenged, and then provided more sources, I’m much more confident in my statements and stand by them. You and the others don’t like it because it doesn’t support your narrative.

And these sources are certainly better than the “middle school quality” you alleged. It’s certainly better than the Gateway Pundit, which has published such gems as: ISIS carried out the Las Vegas shooting, or trying to claim that massive crowds at a Cleveland Cavaliers championship parade were actually a Trump rally. So...physician, heal thyself.

Seriously. The links say the deadline to cast ballots is 8pm. We covered that.

The only thing disputing the video is a quote from some guy. Which if we are accusing them of fraud, why would we accept the quote from a guy who's probably in on it, as counter evidence?

What Does Cast Your Vote Mean? - Writing Explained

What does casting vote mean? Learn this English idiom along with other words and phrases. Cast a vote definition and meaning.

writingexplained.org

In case you don’t bother clicking the link, “cast” means “register”, i.e. fill out your vote and put it in the designated receptacle, like a marked box or what have you. It doesn’t mean that all votes must be delivered and tallied to the Board of Elections, which is not only impossible since instant teleportation isn’t a thing yet, but also is a use of the word that makes no sense

Try again. Of course, as you’ve made it clear, you won’t accept anything that doesn’t conform to your worldview. Still, I’ve made my arguments and I’ll let third parties make their own decisions.

What I won’t do is tolerate masturbatory fantasies about “fighting against The System” that come close to advocating for civil war. Especially when the focus of this whole thing is over one individual who isn’t busy building and maintaining a cult of personality that is disturbing and antithetical to republican traditions. Especially when that one individual is notorious for peddling bullshit and failing to deliver results, then blaming others for his own failings.

 

[JasonSanjo]

I beg your pardon? What "narrative" have I put forth? Kindly provide exact quotes, because I do not recall making any claims about the veracity of the video or about election fraud claims - all I did was point out that your links did not actually support your own claims.

As for your new links, let's see...

The first one is from wdet.org and is dated November 10th, 2020, in regards to claims made back then, and do not address the actual video, again because said video was not available at that time. Ergo, the link is irrelevant as it regards the video, much like your previous links.

The second one, from democracydocket.com, is a scan of a court document that effectively alleges that not enough evidence of voter fraud was provided to the court... on November 3rd, 2020. Before the video was available. Ergo, this is also irrelevant to the subject at hand. Further, your claim of "has to be accurate under penalty of felony" is only relevant to evidence provided in said court case, and is irrelevant to evidence provided outside or after said court case. Furthermore, the threat of penalty of felony has not prevented people from filing false information or falsified documents in quite literally hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of court cases across the United States in the past couple decades alone, let alone its entire history. The existence of a threat in itself does nothing to prevent the existence of false or incorrect information in potentia; court mandates do not equate to natural law of the universe, if that is what you believe.

The third one, from detroitnews.com... dates from November 20th, 2020, when the video was not available. How interesting. That means it is also irrelevant to the discussion of the veracity of the video itself.

Airedale. I see two possibilities, here:
Either 1: You are not actually checking the links you provide before linking them, for whatever reason.
Or 2: You are intentionally trying to obfuscate the issue by providing large amounts of information in the hopes that people will not actually double-check the information thus linked.

Now, I do not personally know you, nor am I familiar with your posting history, so I will not speculate on whether possibility 1 or possibility 2 is the correct one. However, I will say this, regardless of which of the two is correct: You may wish to take a break. Debating in bad faith, whether by negligence or intent, is not good form, and I humbly suggest that you stop.

I will let Rocinante handle the parts addressed to him. For my part, I will bow out for the moment, as I have guests coming over. Good day.

 

[Battlegrinder]

I think we're getting a bit off topic with the van thing, if you want to discuss that, it should be in the main 2020 thread. Let's try to keep this one focused on the Time magazine article.

 

[Terthna]

Hey, @Terthna if you're going to talk about me, at least have the courtesy to say it to my face rather than behind my back. All you have to do is add an @ before my username.

So, here's the thing. Gateway Pundit is a bullshit website and I really doubt Time gives any credibility to them. If it were, say, TMZ, then you'd have a point. Yes, TMZ the entertainment news thing, that also has a reputation for asking difficult questions when nobody else does (like with Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, etc). So, no, I really don't think Time is doing this other than to screw with gullible individuals like you, and keep you focusing your fire on people like me, who have a low-to-nonexistent level of bullshit tolerance and who are just as committed to opposing Biden and the Democrats. Seriously, when was the last time you ever got involved in opposing their policies? What's that? You only write screeds on the internet instead of actually participating in things?

I am only on here because I don't want people listening to your idiocy unopposed, whereas you just want an echo chamber to justify your smugness when you don't do jack in the real world. And also unlike you, I have no problem saying this to your metaphorical face.

Seriously, go find a group, not even a political party, but a charitable organization that helps with stuff you believe in, be it the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, the Knights of Columbus, the Masons, or whatever. Get involved and see how the real world works, and how you actually *can* make a difference instead of being a keyboard jockey.

The reason I don't "say it to your face" isn't because I'm a "cowardly keyboard warrior" (which, I'll grant you, isn't an inaccurate assessment of me; though I will contend being called a "smug idiot" as well); it's because I know you're a liar incapable of arguing in good faith. Conversing with you is just not worth my time.

 

[LindyAF]

Seriously, go find a group, not even a political party, but a charitable organization that helps with stuff you believe in, be it the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, the Knights of Columbus, the Masons, or whatever. Get involved and see how the real world works, and how you actually *can* make a difference instead of being a keyboard jockey.

I've generally found that I disagree with @Airedale260 on most things, but this is good advice. I've seen more of the local political party side of things than charitable organization side of things, but I'd encourage everyone to get organized. Check out your local party, volunteer to send out calls, knock on doors, etc. If you're going to university, check out your local College Republicans or TPUSA or YAF/YAL or whatever you have. Go to church and volunteer with what they do.

I particularly recommend this for the dissident right. A lot of the organizations I recommended have something of a reputation for being moderate and cringe, and at the national level they kind of are. But my experience with local stuff is that you are going to meet a lot of people who think along the same lines you do, as well. I think there are a fair few extremely online people who are caught in a bit of a trap where any organization that they think is cool they can't safely join, and anything that can safely join isn't publicly cool enough. A lot of organizations are a lot better than they appear on the surface, especially at the local level.

Remember, a lot of local grassroots stuff belongs to whoever is willing to show up.

 

[Zachowon]

Reason I am in the military of course

 

[Terthna]

I've generally found that I disagree with @Airedale260 on most things, but this is good advice. I've seen more of the local political party side of things than charitable organization side of things, but I'd encourage everyone to get organized. Check out your local party, volunteer to send out calls, knock on doors, etc. If you're going to university, check out your local College Republicans or TPUSA or YAF/YAL or whatever you have. Go to church and volunteer with what they do.

I particularly recommend this for the dissident right. A lot of the organizations I recommended have something of a reputation for being moderate and cringe, and at the national level they kind of are. But my experience with local stuff is that you are going to meet a lot of people who think along the same lines you do, as well. I think there are a fair few extremely online people who are caught in a bit of a trap where any organization that they think is cool they can't safely join, and anything that can safely join isn't publicly cool enough. A lot of organizations are a lot better than they appear on the surface, especially at the local level.

Remember, a lot of local grassroots stuff belongs to whoever is willing to show up.

I agree; before the pandemic, I used to volunteer at a local church for many years to hand out food to the homeless. There's nothing like the feeling that you're actually helping other people. But it's hard to take good advice when it's presented in such an insulting way.

 

[Airedale260]

I agree; before the pandemic, I used to volunteer at a local church for many years to hand out food to the homeless. There's nothing like the feeling that you're actually helping other people. But it's hard to take good advice when it's presented in such an insulting way.

That’s fair, and I am sorry for getting snippy. I would add that I really agree with @LindyAF that grassroots are what make the difference, i.e., if you want to make the changes, dig in instead of just complaining. Or even just to do stuff for others in general.

It’s part of why I got involved in local politics because I do think there are issues with the GOP, but I’m also more of a constitutionalist than anything else, and while I do think the GOP needs to accept more of a populist bent and Trump did some good in that respect, I am also really disturbed by the whole “I was robbed” thing and the blowups about it, as opposed to “the entire Establishment went after him hard and he still almost pulled it off.”

I don’t like the whole “purging of RINOs” talk because that’s what the Democrats tend to do and I don’t like ideological purity tests. Especially when said test is over loyalty to a single individual.

 

[Terthna]

That’s fair, and I am sorry for getting snippy. I would add that I really agree with @LindyAF that grassroots are what make the difference, i.e., if you want to make the changes, dig in instead of just complaining. Or even just to do stuff for others in general.

It’s part of why I got involved in local politics because I do think there are issues with the GOP, but I’m also more of a constitutionalist than anything else, and while I do think the GOP needs to accept more of a populist bent and Trump did some good in that respect, I am also really disturbed by the whole “I was robbed” thing and the blowups about it, as opposed to “the entire Establishment went after him hard and he still almost pulled it off.”

I don’t like the whole “purging of RINOs” talk because that’s what the Democrats tend to do and I don’t like ideological purity tests. Especially when said test is over loyalty to a single individual.

In short, you don't want to believe that the election was fraudulent, because the idea disturbs you; I don't believe I need to point out the issues with that sort of thinking.

 

[FriedCFour]

I don’t like the whole “purging of RINOs” talk because that’s what the Democrats tend to do and I don’t like ideological purity tests. Especially when said test is over loyalty to a single individual.

you only have so many seats available for reps. Why would you not want to replace bad ones with better ones?

 

[Airedale260]

In short, you don't want to believe that the election was fraudulent, because the idea disturbs you; I don't believe I need to point out the issues with that sort of thinking.

No, it’s that I think Donald Trump is full of shit.

Especially compared to how Republicans won victories at all the other levels, have a majority of state legislatures and made gains in the House when the guy at the top of the ticket lost. Only when he himself was the issue (2018, the 2020 presidential, and making the 2021 Georgia races about himself instead of on the issues of why a Democratic majority would be a terrible thing) did the Democrats win.

I mean, if the Democrats were able to rig elections in such a way that few would question it, why would they willingly accept write offs at the state level, since *that* is where redistricting occurs, and lose a bunch of Senate seats that few would question if they’d won?

 

[Captain X]

Because the Presidential ticket was the one they had to focus on and make sure they won. It seems as if some kind of electronic manipulation was at play, and it's a lot simpler to write a program that's going to change the votes of one person over to another person rather than having to worry about all the various legislative votes in addition to that. I mean, they did use Arizona as a testing ground in 2018, and the Georgia run-off election looks like it was a cheat for them as well, so it's not like they cheated in just the one election either.

 

[S'task]

I mean, if the Democrats were able to rig elections in such a way that few would question it, why would they willingly accept write offs at the state level, since *that* is where redistricting occurs, and lose a bunch of Senate seats that few would question if they’d won?

This is a lot easier to answer than you might think? Firstly, the Dems won a lot of seats in the Senate comparatively. Yes, fewer than they EXPECTED, but they still won it. As to the results in the House...

I'm not taking a firm stance saying that the fix was in, but from a logistics and execution standpoint, to influence the Presidential race you need only a handful of cities to put out enough votes to flip the states. This could theoretically be done by just a few precincts in said city, creating a very limited number of people involved (important for opsec) while also giving cover for the flood of votes (these are already high D areas and the US never has 100% turnout, so your suddenly influx of D votes doesn't look as suspicious).

Meanwhile to impact the House races you need a much larger and spread out operation, you'd need to corrupt the process in dozens to scores of precincts, some of which are much lower in population density and are frequently very close races (which means flooding them with D votes will raise a lot of red flags, whereas a precinct going from 85% D to 90% D doesn't really look weird but can represent thousands if not tens of thousands of votes).

To explain the math using simple numbers, let's say you have a district which has 1000 voters. It normally has a turnout of 50% (so 500 votes are usually cast) and the vote splits 80% D 20% R. This means 400 Votes for the D and 100 for the R. If you stuff in an extra 100 Votes for the D in this district you'd push turnout to 60%, which for a divisive Presidential election isn't THAT weird, while only changing the vote split to 86% - 14%... not that weird of a swing.

Compare that to say a district with similar attributes that normally splits close to 50-50. You stuff an extra 100 ballots for the D there and suddenly the vote has swung from 50-50 to 71-29. That's a MASSIVE swing and looks weird when combined with the uptick of turnout that all HAPPENED to go to the D. People are going to go "why did this normally perfectly purple district suddenly turn deep blue?" You don't normally see districts swing that fast and by that much.

Thus, if your main concern is the presidential race, you don't ballot stuff in districts that are normally close, you stuff them in districts your party OWNS. The Ds in the US have a much easier set up for doing this, as they tend to own districts that are also highly population dense, meaning they can stuff more without raising alarms, meanwhile the deep red districts where Republicans dominate tend to be low density rural districts where if they tried to stuff enough ballots to swing a statewide race it would be much more noticeable (due to the sudden spike in turnout above historical norms or more easily exceeding registered voters in said district).

Thus the House races being out of sync with the Presidential race is not really a good argument against concerns of voter fraud via ballot stuffing. The logistics of ballot stuffing make it so that influencing Houses races via that method is much more difficult and requires a larger organization, whereas ballot stuffing for the Presidential race requires very little infrastructure, and can be made harder to detect as part of normal statistical noise than using that method to influence the vote for the House of Representatives.