Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

Yeah, what a bummer that real “evidence” is required and not just hearsay.

Exactly!  It's been several weeks now and this is getting ridiculous.

Could you imagine if a large percentage of the news pushed by media outlets was based on election hearsay rather than hard evidence for, say, the next 3 years?  

 

Edited by Grabby
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Grabby said:

Exactly!  It's been several weeks now and this is getting ridiculous.

Could you imagine if a large percentage of the news pushed by media outlets was based on election hearsay rather than hard evidence for, say, the next 3 years?  

 

Maybe the senate will investigate and publish a 966 page report detailing the significant, coordinated and widespread connections Trump's team democrats had with Russians election fraud.  Or maybe not.

Anywho...'tis the season for pardons...where my "law and order" peeps at?

What are your thoughts on the president's pardon power and should it be limited?  Should he be able to pardon those who may testify against him?  Should he be able to pardon himself?  Do you think this was the intent the founding fathers had in mind when they were writing the constitution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Plaintiffs seek an emergency order prohibiting Defendants from including in any certified results from the General Election the tabulation of absentee and mailing ballots which do not comply with the Election Code, including, without limitation, the tabulation of absentee and mail-in ballots Trump Campaign’s watchers were prevented from observing or based on the tabulation of invalidly cast absentee and mail-in ballots which (i) lack a secrecy envelope, or contain on that envelope any text, mark, or symbol which reveals the elector’s identity, political affiliation, or candidate preference, (ii) do not include on the outside envelope a completed declaration that is dated and signed by the elector, or (iii) are delivered inperson by third parties for non-disabled voters.

https://defendingtherepublic.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/COMPLAINT-CJ-PEARSON-V.-KEMP-11.25.2020.pdf

Sidney Powell's GA lawsuit. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

With a dismissal from a lower courts, and not a subsequent opinion from ruling on the case, most likely not.

Yeah, reading stuff on the internet from both sides. I'm not educated enough in the workings of the law to really know. And most of the so called pundits seem to have a law degree from the university of google.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All scientific conclusions herein are made to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty in my fields of expertise.  I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Engineering in May of 2004, a Master of Science in Circuit Design in May of 2006, and a Doctorate in Computer Arithmetic in May of 2007, all from The University of Texas at Austin.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.350905/gov.uscourts.mied.350905.1.12.pdf

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.350905/gov.uscourts.mied.350905.1.0_1.pdf

Sidney Powell's Michigan lawsuit. 

Quote

The scheme and artifice to defraud was for the purpose of illegally and fraudulently manipulating the vote count to manufacture an election of Joe Biden as President of the United States. The fraud was executed by many means,2 but the most fundamentally troubling, insidious, and egregious ploy was the systemic adaptation of old-fashioned “ballotstuffing.” It has now been amplified and rendered virtually invisible by computer software created and run by domestic and foreign actors for that very purpose. This Complaint details an especially egregious range of conduct in Wayne County and the City of Detroit, though this conduct occurred throughout the State at the direction of Michigan state election officials.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, torqued said:

All scientific conclusions herein are made to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty in my fields of expertise.  I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Engineering in May of 2004, a Master of Science in Circuit Design in May of 2006, and a Doctorate in Computer Arithmetic in May of 2007, all from The University of Texas at Austin.

 

 

Biggest red flag is that he only did it for Michigan. In fact if you do this for Texas you will find statistical anomolies far greater than those reported here.

Example: 

On point 18 he boldfaces that in Oakland county New Dem/New GOP were at a ratio of 2.52 in 2020; in 2016 it was 1.19. Implying that somehow much more of the new votes went to Biden outside of the expected range based on 2016 numbers. 

Now let's do this for Starr county in TX, the county that experienced the biggest "statistical anomaly" in 2020, except it was for Trump. The ratio of New GOP Votes to New Dem votes was 6000/189 or 31.7 whereas in 2016 the ratio was 2200/9100 or 0.25. He mentions that all new Biden votes in Troy outpaced new registered votes by 109%, in Starr county it was 103% of new votes to Trump. Trump gained all 6000 new votes. Starr county experienced at 56 percentage point swing towards Trump compared to 2016. This "statistical anomaly" was only apparent in South Texas. Strange? Yes, but with a benign explanation. Biden ignored south TX, Trump dropped the ball on protests in Michigan. 

Sources: 

2016 election: https://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist319_race62.htm

2020 election: https://results.texas-election.com/contestdetails?officeID=1001&officeName=PRESIDENT%2FVICE-PRESIDENT&officeType=FEDERAL OFFICES&from=race

Margin vote swing by county: https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/texas/

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judge blocks PA certification. Likely going to supreme court. Mail-in ballots are disenfranchisement.

https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Kelly-v.-Pennsylvania-Injunction-Halting-Certification-Memorandum-Opinion-Filed-11-27-2020.pdf

Quote

The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed various circumstances concerning disenfranchisement of votes. For instance, it has held the right to vote is foundational to our Republic and this fundamental right “can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964). Reynolds,which established the “one person, one vote” doctrine, is the seminal case on voter dilution. Under this concept, a mail-in voting process that would exceed the limits of absentee voting prescribed in Pa. Const. Article VII sec 14 could be construed as violating the “one person one vote.” In that event, the sheer magnitude of the number of mail-in ballots would not be a basis to disregard not only this provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution but also the “one person, one vote” doctrine established by Reynolds, one of the bedrock decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wait...I'm a bit lost, so bear with me...the republican party, who closes voting locations in democrat-heavy districts, installs fake ballot drop boxes, intentionally slowed the USPS to slow mail in voting, purged voter rolls, and imposed a poll tax on felons to vote...is claiming voter disenfranchisement...because people made it easier to vote during a pandemic?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, drewpey said:

wait...I'm a bit lost, so bear with me...the republican party, who closes voting locations in democrat-heavy districts, installs fake ballot drop boxes, intentionally slowed the USPS to slow mail in voting, purged voter rolls, and imposed a poll tax on felons to vote...is claiming voter disenfranchisement...because people made it easier to vote during a pandemic?

Both sides practice disenfranchisement. Democrats tried to disenfranchise the absentee vote in Florida in 2000 knowing a large majority of the Florida absentee ballots were overseas military. (Who typically vote more Conservative, especially back then) 

I think anyone who doesn't believe massive amounts of cheating or fraud are going on on our elections are a bit naive to how terrible the world we live in is. It 100% happens. The questions are the scale, how much organization is behind it, and to what degree is direction recieved from the top levels of each major party. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're really going to "muh both sides" me with a 20 year old example?  Surely you can find a better, more recent example than democrats going to court on mail in ballots postmarked after the election...something that would give most republicans an aneurysm in 2020.

Sure fraud happens on a negligible level and is usually caught, but "massive" is a bit of an overstatement.  Even the hyper-partisan Kobach commission came up dry, like most republican investigations into "fraud".

As said before the biggest flaw in these conspiracy theories is that it assumes the government can coordinate and execute something this big without anyone knowing about it or coming clean.  On top of that, the idea we cheated yet neglected to check the boxes for senate seats is just laughable.  Also since there's 50 states, why are we only concerned about fraud in a couple states if it's so widespread?  Seems like if we really are that devious there would be ample evidence everywhere. I was promised a Kraken.  Where is my Kraken?

Trump should have won given how close the race was and how poorly his decision making process was...but he is too arrogant to listen to anyone and has surrounded himself with yes men.  He is literally the dude who chooses the throwaway COA every time.  "we could ignore it and wait for it to go away, we could issue an apology and pretend to care, or we could double down and insult their mom" "Yeah, lets go with 3"

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

I think anyone who doesn't believe massive amounts of cheating or fraud are going on on our elections are a bit naive to how terrible the world we live in is. It 100% happens. The questions are the scale, how much organization is behind it, and to what degree is direction recieved from the top levels of each major party. 

Apparently I'm a bit naive then. I don't believe in massive amounts of cheating or fraud. 

150 million votes were cast. Of course some dipshít voted twice, or stole his neighbors mail and sent in their ballot, etc. I just can't take anyone seriously when they allege that there is an organized effort, at any meaningful scale, in any jurisdiction at all, to commit fraud. Especially when they offer literally no evidence. It doesn't exist. This is just some mealy-mouthed way of trying to put an asterisk next to Trump's loss. Sadly, being a sore loser hurts everyone in the form of weakening our democracy. 

Edited by Waingro
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Waingro said:

Apparently in a bit naive then. I don't believe in massive amounts of cheating or fraud. 

150 million votes were cast. Of course some dipshít voted twice, or stole his neighbors mail and sent in their ballot, etc. I just can't take anyone seriously when they allege that there is an organized effort, at any meaningful scale, in any jurisdiction at all, to commit fraud. Especially when they offer literally no evidence. It doesn't exist. This is just some mealy-mouthed way of trying to put an asterisk next to Trump's loss. Sadly, being a sore loser hurts everyone in the form of weakening our democracy. 

I could care less about Trump winning. Didn't even vote this election. Didn't vote for him in the last one. 

The evidence that cheating is happening is 1.) It's low risk. 2.) It's high reward. 3.) People are generally evil and there is no way they would not cheat if they saw a mechanism to do it.

You don't see evidence because those who accuse of cheating who actually have access of evidence also realise that by presenting it they implicate themselves. 

It's that simple. It's like steroids man. You know athletes are doing it even without evidence. There are weak protections against it but it's still so easy to circumvent you know it's happening. 

If I were running a campaign I would 100% try to cheat. Why shouldn't I? Almost 0 chance of getting caught and I could tilt the election in my favor then instill power mechanisms to keep me there. 

Maybe I'm just jaded and have a low opinion of humanity. 

Edited by FLEA
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, FLEA said:

I could care less about Trump winning. Didn't even vote this election. Didn't vote for him in the last one. 

The evidence that cheating is happening is 1.) It's low risk. 2.) It's high reward. 3.) People are generally evil and there is no way they would not cheat if they saw a mechanism to do it.

You don't see evidence because those who accuse of cheating who actually have access of evidence also realise that by presenting it they implicate themselves. 

It's that simple. It's like steroids man. You know athletes are doing it even without evidence. There are weak protections against it but it's still so easy to circumvent you know it's happening. 

If I were running a campaign I would 100% try to cheat. Why shouldn't I? Almost 0 chance of getting caught and I could tilt the election in my favor then instill power mechanisms to keep me there. 

You are a master's class in argumentative fallacy. Your evidence of cheating is an incorrect and uneducated assumption on risk/reward? 

Manipulating an election on the scale required to affect the outcome would require a multiple person conspiracy to commit fraud. The fraud itself is a felony, the act of conspiracy is a separate, much more serious felony that the DOJ has a pretty good track record of obtaining long sentences for. So it is not, as you baselessly claim, "low risk." Regarding your assertion of high reward, for who? The individuals capable of attempting the crime are clerks, volunteers and minor appointed officials. 

"Jim, you've done a good job serving the people of Michigan as a country registrar. We appreciate the time you've taken away from your insurance sales job to help us conduct a fair and impartial election. If you'd be willing to help Joe Biden win by asking your peers to help falsify data, here's a big bag of un-laundered cash you can share. I promise I'm not a cop and promise I'm not wearing a wire."

🙄

Say, maybe the Apollo mission were faked and 9/11 was an inside job.

Also, just because you're dishonest doesn't mean that other people are too. You're the anomaly. Most of us play by the rules. 

If you want to see the proof of this being a fair election, simply read what Trump's legal team has argued in court.

No Fraud, no evidence of anything. 

Edited by LJDRVR
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, LJDRVR said:

You are a master's class in argumentative fallacy. Your evidence of cheating is an incorrect and uneducated assumption on risk/reward? 

Manipulating an election on the scale required to affect the outcome would require a multiple person conspiracy to commit fraud. The fraud itself is a felony, the act of conspiracy is a separate, much more serious felony that the DOJ has a pretty good track record of obtaining long sentences for. So it is not, as you baselessly claim, "low risk." Regarding your assertion of high reward, for who? The individuals capable of attempting the crime are clerks, volunteers and minor appointed officials. 

"Jim, you've done a good job serving the people of Michigan as a country registrar. We appreciate the time you've taken away from your insurance sales job to help us conduct a fair and impartial election. If you'd be willing to help Joe Biden win by asking your peers to help falsify data, here's a big bag of un-laundered cash you can share. I promise I'm not a cop and promise I'm not wearing a wire."

🙄

Say, maybe the Apollo mission were faked and 9/11 was an inside job.

Also, just because you're dishonest doesn't mean that other people are too. You're the anomaly. Most of us play by the rules. 

If you want to see the proof of this being a fair election, simply read what Trump's legal team has argued in court.

No Fraud, no evidence of anything. 

Lol ok....

  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2020 at 8:32 PM, Grabby said:

Exactly!  It's been several weeks now and this is getting ridiculous.

Could you imagine if a large percentage of the news pushed by media outlets was based on election hearsay rather than hard evidence for, say, the next 3 years?  

 

You'd need a special investigator to handle 3 years of no hard evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...