I'm putting my chips on the blonde chick. Nothing is more convincing than being a bitch that says "like" and "ya know" 45 times in 3 minutes.
The Trump Coup Attempt
- Thread starter DaShuckster
- Start date
Meh, he is an embarrassment, but he did just as much in 4 years as Obama did in eight (both illegal and legal). The economy was strong, he didn’t wage any new wars, his administration saw the brokering of historic peace deals and he switched our foreign focus from the Middle East to China because we no longer had to worry about foreign oil.
I take it back he did more in four years than Obama did in eight. He just isn’t likable, but Obama was , to quote Biden, “clean and articulate.”
The Trump sycophants are nauseating, but there were good reasons to vote for him. I don’t think anyone that voted for him should be treated as dumb (we can talk about the ones that go to rallies and protest with their flags. I also find it weird that so many people wore Trump crap the whole four years). A person can genuinely disagree with Biden’s economic promises and that would be enough. We need more parties and maybe one day we will have a serious candidate.
So from that short snippet, it's hard to gleam anything useful. One county in NY just found like 50 ballots that had been misplaced and not counted. It's hardly shocking (to me anyway), that in a state where you couldn't pre-canvass mail in ballots, that you'd still be dealing with the logistics at 4:00am on election night.
I know in places where you had centralized counting, you literally had trucks showing up with ballots from precincts. Should it take until 4:00am to get them there? No. But again, don't assume malice when incompetence will suffice.
As a counter point, I saw a video (think it was from Nevada) shortly after the election when stop-the-steal protestors were at the counting site. A random moving truck drove by and the protestors were flipping out because they all ASSUMED that was a truck with fraudulent ballots being delivered. I mean, a box truck driving just randomly driving by = fraud to them. So yes I'm very hesitant to believe purely circumstantial testimony from people who have been told by POTUS for months that democrats were going to steal the election. They showed up looking for fraud so that's what they saw.
Isn't this the chick that a federal judge deemed non-credible in one of the cases? I'm not surprised. It's laughable what she's claiming.
She seriously says they were counting the same ballots 8-10 times. And she didn't see a single vote for Donald Trump. Despite that, Donald Trump got a BIGGER vote share in Detroit than he did in 2016. See my numbers in the post above. Biden netted a total of 800 more votes out of Detroit than Hillary did.
This is SOOOOO dumb. Ballots are individually bar coded. The system knows if a ballot has already been counted. Can you defeat that in software? Of course. Is there any evidence at all in the vote totals out of Detroit that might have happened? No.
She's saying Dominion brass was in TCF to commit fraud and all they could manage to do was net BIden 800 votes more than Hillary got? And only a fraction of what Obama got? This isn't even remotely credible.
Still not a single illegal action happening. Bidet's are just having tough time with the challenge.
All the batshit craziness from Michael Flynn, PA Senator Doug Mastriano, Rudy, and other Trumpster idiots are only reinforcing the fact that the American voters did the right thing.
Is there anything that could be presented as evidence of voter fraud on a massive scale that would make you consider the possibility that its true?
There is evidence of voter fraud. People have been arrested for it. 2 Trump supporters in PA for example. Yes if there are arrests and indictments related to specific instances of fraud. Not the spaghetti method of a million different non specific vague anecdotes not backed by evidence that holds up in courts and not targeted at individuals who they allege committed the fraud.
Lin Wood claims Trump won California in a land slide.![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
These people, like many on this board, just do not live in reality.
How do you reason with the clinically insane?
Lin Wood claims Trump won California in a land slide.
Made the mistake of going through his twitter feed.
holy. shit.
This man is the very definition of Ya'll Qaeda. Mentally ill is an understatement.
Yes. The argument is fraud in major cities in swing states. Start by showing me one bit of data suggesting the vote totals are unreasonable in those cities compared to prior elections.
You HAVE to start there. You can't tell me they're bringing in fraudulent ballots by the truckload and re-counting the same ballot 8x in Detroit so that Biden can do worse than Hillary in terms of vote share, and net a whopping 800 votes more than she did in the city.
If there was fraud, it would HAVE to be in the suburbs where the biggest shifts happened. That's where Biden won the election. But that's not a convenient narrative. It's much easier to attack the mostly black urban centers that vote 80%+ democrat than a bunch of suburbs all over the state that shifted by a few percent.
Random example - there's a Hasidic Jewish precinct in NY that apparently decides their vote as a community and everybody votes the same way. It basically went 800-2 Hillary last time and went 800-2 Trump this time. So if you see something weird, you better actually dig in because 99% of the time there's an explanation.
I can't totally disagree with that assessment, but the last example you cited isn't an anomaly because there is precedent there. Looking at the situation as a whole, not just looking at the individual counties that have brought up the most criticism, there is reason to step to step back and ask what exactly happened here. Counties and states don't earn the tell "bellweather" for no reason, and Trump outperformed those areas. Things like winning more counties than anyone ever, but losing by a fairly wide margin overall with marginal underperformance in the metro areas brings up some questions.
Regardless, back to the original question of what evidence would have to be produced to be considered proof goes beyond statistics: what would it take? Like lets say a single county had a forensic analysis done on their voting machines and it showed that ballots had been weighted. Is that enough? What if it was 20 counties? Would 1 truckload of ballots being found that weren't counted be enough, or would it take 20 truckloads? Let's say its proven that a pipe didn't burst in Atlanta, which led to sending people home. Would that be proof of fraud?
I think it means that if you get arrested, you'll be in a jail cell but the door will be left unlocked?
How the fuk are people stupid enough to think trump would actually win?
So there's big gaps between "hmm that's interesting" - "damn this might be legit" - and "yup this is proof." To get to the "yup" stage, I think you'd need senate level hearings with multiple highly credible experts confirming the kind of analysis you're describing.
But this whole thing is the tail wagging the dog. Trump always blames fraud. It was predictable he would say this. This is an effort to find evidence to prove something he made up. So it doesn't start from a credible place.
Kind of an interesting article on PA with some stats.
Kind of an interesting article on PA with some stats.
This is a terrible analysis. Not bad. Terrible.
There's a big difference in party registration and party ID. How someone is registered does not always reflect how they view themselves. State data only reflects registration. For a super easy example, go look at WV - a historically democrat state that now votes very red. Trump got almost 70% of the vote, yet as of Nov 2020, Democrats still have a slight edge in statewide registration.
So If I did this exact same kind of analysis in WV, I'd come up with ~40% of Registered democrats supporting Trump. Is that evidence of mass voter fraud?
In PA there are ~700k more registered Democrats than Republicans. Yet in the exit polling he cites (WP), 41% self-reported as R and 40% self reported as D. The state is much closer to 50/50 in terms of how people identify vs the state registration data.
So he's conflating exit poll data (which is party ID) with official data (which is party registration), and assuming you can mix those two. You can't. I can't quickly find the day-of party registration breakdown in PA, but I guarantee you this exact same logic would produce equally odd data in Trump's favor.
Who the hell is dumb enough to think Biden wouldn't win massively in vote by mail percentages?
I mean every day I'm just absolutely awestruck how stupid you people are. Trump was on TV for 3 months non stop whining about mail in voting. I saw a mentally ill person with a giant flag towed behind their pickup truck on a trailer (in PA) that said "Vote in Person for Trump".
I mean every day I'm just absolutely awestruck how stupid you people are. Trump was on TV for 3 months non stop whining about mail in voting. I saw a mentally ill person with a giant flag towed behind their pickup truck on a trailer (in PA) that said "Vote in Person for Trump".
Show trial. That's all this crap is from Rudy.
And GA actually performed pretty close to the polling averages - 538's final vote share prediction had Biden winning by just under 1%. That's a HUGE part of this story that you also have to overlook to buy into the fraud narrative. Biden underperformed his polling nationally by ~4% as pro-Trump turnout was above what was predicted.
Rudy has suggested Trump might have won VA (which he lost by 10 pts). So the scale of the fraud they are suggesting is on that order of magnitude, meaning polls were off by 10%+.
A really crude initial starting point to suggest fraud would be a massive polling discrepancy beyond what is reasonable. Rudy wants you to believe the opposite. That Trump benefitted from a 4% polling error AND he was the victim of fraud.
They'd have a MUCH better basis for this if Biden overperformed polling. Imagine for a second if instead of trying to understand why polling is missing ~4% of Trump's support, everyone just said "No polling is right. Clearly there's massive levels of fraud in rural counties all over the country to Trump's benefit. Let's try to sue and throw out rural votes because clearly there was fraud. These kind of polling errors are impossible I tell you!."
No. Trump and crew reached the conclusion first (fraud) and are now interpreting everything through that predetermined lens. Confirmation bias.
No offense, but you're doing the exact same thing. Looking for any reason to discredit literally every claim shows that you also have a bias.
None taken. But my position is one of rational skepticism. Was James Randi just biased against psychics? Is a physicist debunking claims of perpetual motion machines showing his inherent bias against perpetual motion?
There are some people who *really* want perpetual motion to be a real thing. They glom on to every new fraudster with a YouTube video. They are the ones with bias. Not the scientist who keeps debunking them.
A better analogy might be a really good UFO researcher. They don't show up assuming "aliens!". They show up assuming it was a hoax or mis-identification. Only through a scientific process of evaluation do they eventually assess how credible a sighting is by ruling out alternatives. That's all I'm doing.
When you post something I dig into and I'm like "damn I don't know WTF is going on here" I'll let you know.
Ok. Explain why hundreds of people have come out and signed affidavits saying they witnessed potential fraud in a multitude of fashions. It used to be that eye-witness testimony was kind of a big deal. Are all of those people just mistaken in what they saw, or are they lying about it?
Potential fraud doesn't equate to fraud though. It equates to someone, who might not even entirely know what they are looking at, who might have a partisan angle, etc etc saying "they saw something that looks suspicious". And if you have read some of these affidavits, you would know they are filled with some pretty weak claims. But ultimately, here is the problem. When Trump's people have presented any of this before the courts, they have no actual evidence of fraud. At some point you have to present evidence.
Take the court aspect out of the equation, because if anything that would lead to people being more likely to dismiss what they thought they saw. There are e explanations to this: some of what was witnessed is fraud, none of what was witnessed is fraud, all of what was witnessed is fraud. We all know that the most likely truth there is that some of what was witnessed is fraud, so why does every single claim get immediately met with dismissiveness from the left?
Because you have no evidence. It isn't even that you cant fully prove it, you have basically no evidence of it. You are literally wanting us to believe things on faith. The whole idea is that we should just take Trump's word for it that there was fraud and he won. Except, that isn't how this works. If there is a voting fraud issue in this country, then it is something that should concern everyone, and we should get it fixed. But if the people claiming this can provide no evidence of it, then how seriously do I need to take it? That is an honest question. If somebody makes a claim, but has no evidence to back that claim up, how seriously do you want me to take it? And for how long, with no evidence, am I expected to take it seriously?
And also, if you take the courts out of it, what we are basically left with is internet conspiracies and things of that nature. Sorry, but I am more aligned with the courts, in that I want to see some evidence before I just take your word for it.
there are hundreds of examples at this point, but you know that.
the irony is that yall admit both "there is no evidence" and "there wasn't enough to overturn an election"
Evidence is largely based on faith. What evidence do you have personally that men did or didn't land on the moon? What evidence do you personally have that OJ did or didn't kill his wife? None, but you rely on the testimony of others and form a rational opinion. For someone on the left, no evidence will likely ever be enough because bias supercedes everything unless they personally have tangible proof or personal experience.
Your whole point is that we just take your (Trump and co's) word for. That is literally the basis for your whole argument. I think you might want to re-examine who the ones acting with bias here are. It might be the people who can't accept that their favorite reality TV star lost an election. Just sayin.
What? This has nothing to do with Trumps word or my word. This is about the hundreds of people that have signed affidavits. Are they all lying? Are some of them lying? Are none of them lying?
are you planning on responding to this, or are you waiting to hear what you're supposed to think from your team?
ignoring evidence is not the same as there being no evidence
Sorry I dont live on this board. And no, there is nothing in that video that shows evidence of fraud, nothing. The person even says "we believe" "probably is", the language they use shows they dont even know for sure what it is.
Latest posts
-
UCF fb -2.5 pt favorite over WVU (opening line on DraftKings)- Latest: UCF_SystemsEng
-
-
-
