The 2020 General Election Thread II

[Timjoebillybob]

You really need to study some of this stuff to learn some of the concepts used, not saying I am right but you have to learn to understand how this all connects. Others have different opinions, that is why attorneys argue cases.

The constitution says electors are chosen as the legislature prescribes, the legislature perscribes poll watchers in varying laws. If those laws, poll watchers, are violated then by that connection I say civil rights are being violated...

I've studied some, as time allows.

Yeah, that is a stretch and not really what you stated originally. "Actually being allowed to observe (close enough to see what is happening) is set in most states by the legislature and is the way perscribed by the constitution." Yes the Constitution does state legislature gets to decide how the electors are chosen. I'm not willing to say that any violation of election law is a civil rights violation. And again, if the law was violated I wouldn't mind seeing prosecutions.

You also didn't answer just how far away is close enough, I would like your opinion on this.

That is why conservatives were so relieved to get Barrett on the court, Roberts is the new swingman...

Also, I might add, one can never know what Roberts might have done if he was swingman based off his votes swinging on cases the are 5-3, since he doesn't decide anything he may vote differently at different times for a political statement or other reasons.

Actually how he votes on 5-3 cases is informative, 5-4 not so much depending on which side he is on. In a 5-3 case his vote would be the deciding vote, in a 5-4 case if he is on the dissenting side not so much.

Have you read in depth about the server seized in Germany? This is probably the best example of the full news embargo on uncomfortable election related issues. I will say flat out, I do not know if this happened, but it was stated it did under oath 2-3 times in hearings but most people never have heard about it much less the intrigue surrounding it. If this was reported the public would eat it up like a real life Clancy novel.

Full news embargo? How many "main stream media" reports on it would you like?

And I've read a good bit about it. How everyone jumped on it because Gohmert tweeted that he saw a tweet from germany in german that the army raided a syctle office. It's now they raided a CIA location and seized their server and lost lives in the process. The Army had denied it, Germany has denied it, Scytle has denied it. We've got a retired General who has been out of the service for what 25+ years, saying it happened. The same General who got fired from Fox news back when they were conservative for spreading BS. I'm not denigrating his service, just saying he might be getting a bit senile.

And stated under oath doesn't mean squat about it being factual, it just means at best that the person thinks it's factual.

How the heck do we get answers when the deep state goes after the whistleblowers instead of the allegations?

We were supposed to believe a single bat-s**t crazy that Kavanaugh was a gang rapist, a single officer that impeachment was the proper course, but thousands of affidavits and testimony is nothing.

They are are trying to scare folks from coming forward, just like the mob...

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...harassed-reporting-truckload-illegal-ballots/

Ff

Yeah, no. The guy is ticked because they didn't just believe him. They actually questioned him can you believe the audacity of them? And how does he know they aren't investigating?

 

[BrianT]

Actually it is not a lot to prove, if one is thinking technologically, not physically. One of the funniest memes, that was lost, was the office space guys, that had set the program to just siphon off the minute percentages that were dropped in transactions. They were shocked when the beer money account had an enormous amount of money in it, enough to get them caught.

If indeed vote machine and tabulation software were compromised does anyone really believe that this election was the first run through? I certainly do not. Word is they used it in certain states to clinch easy for Obama, used it to to beat the Bernie bros twice, and that it has been used in Venezuela and Cuba to control election results. This technology is 20 years old and ripe to do the main event in the US. Some say it was created by the CIA.

Everyday more info on vulnerabilities of the vote systems come out, from centralized tabulation Internet connections checking in with the humans to approve results to simple connections in the machines that an app driven device could be connected to. Settings that allow fractional voting, and only displaying votes as percentages that allows vote changes without detection.

Fraction Magic! Roy Moore said there was a county that had more straight ticket Republican ballots than votes he received. I watched it happen in the Bevin Brashear race in KY, over 500 votes flipped in the blink of an eye, the exact number flipping from Bevin went to Brashear. They just say "no proof, glitch, entry error" and they get away with it.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Let's try an experiment: why don't you list the examples you find worthy of investigation.

I've seen quite a few that look like their worthy of investigation, I've stated that there was suspicious activity. I've even said I'm for investigations. I have also said I haven't seen any actual evidence. You posted earlier "And some have a tendency to discount anything that might be considered evidence. " What have you seen so far that constitutes evidence?

Fraction Magic! Roy Moore said there was a county that had more straight ticket Republican ballots than votes he received.

In what election? Moore hasn't been on a general ballot since at least 2017 which was a special election for Senator and I don't believe there is a straight ticket option on those. Considering it was for one office.

 

[Ingomike]

Why are anonymous sources good enough for Russiagate but not thousands of affidavits and testimony for election fraud?

And I heard somewhere that all women were to be believed...

 

[jamil]

For me, it is the Dominion audit trail. That's a structural issue.

Honestly, cases involving ballot harvesting, dead people voting, and out of state voters are important - and worthy of investigation - but won't produce the results necessary to change the outcome.

Structural problems? Hell yes.

Yeah. I'd say that's one I'd like to see pursued. Also, there are some specific claims of events with possibly shady stuff that the explanation doesn't quite answer. For example, why did the one PA counting center say they were done for the night, and then seemingly start counting again after certain people left?

Another one that deserves a deep dive, not because it's all that credible, but because so many people believe it's true. That's the Germany raid. I don't trust people on the left and their media to tell the truth about that. Same with right wing. It kinda smells like propaganda to me. But because so many people believe it, I'd like to see it thoroughly investigated by someone who is objectively honest, but also someone the right trusts, such that if in good faith, they dug into the story as deep as it goes, and determined that it didn't happen, and reported such, right-wingers would believe it. I don't think such a person exists, and that's a big reason why the election has gone the way it has.

 

[jamil]

Why are anonymous sources good enough for Russiagate but not thousands of affidavits and testimony for election fraud?

And I heard somewhere that all women were to be believed...

In my view, the anonymous sources weren't good enough. I did not believe the Russia bull**** (though I had some suspicions at first) because it did not pass the smell test, just like the Germany/dominion raid doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm beginning to wonder if you really believe this stuff, or if you simply enjoy stirring the pot.

This is common complaint for those who think outside the majority of a given group in which they partially identify. I agree with Alpo. The Republican party has lost it's way. I'd go further in depth, but I'm going to need a wavier from a mod or at least a couple members to speak freely.

 

[BugI02]

Once again calling balls and strikes while sitting on a fence.

The republican party is on a dangerous path to destroy the very nature of the process whereby we elect citizens to represent the voters of their towns and states. There may be no coming back from this.

Yes, when that 'process' is altered for partisan advantage into a system riddled with the opportunity for fraud, we are right to seek its destruction - and republicans didn't start us down that road you may recall. We were quite content with in person voting after positive identification and accurate maintenance of the voting rolls. You know, the kind of constitutional 'disenfranchisement' by inconvenience that democrats were always on about

You cannot fight for inherrently insecure amendments to voting rules while resisting any and all attempts to close the loopholes that lead to cheating and expect people to continue to accept that they aren't being screwed

But you know that. The rest is Kabuki

 

[jamil]

This is common complaint for those who think outside the majority of a given group in which they partially identify. I agree with Alpo. The Republican party has lot it's way. I'd go further in depth, but I'm going to need a wavier from a mod or at least a couple members to speak freely.

As long as you're willing to give it a good faith balanced go of it, it wouldn't bother me to hear what you have to say. If it's "Republicans bad Democrats good", well, that would indicate some sand remnants. But I have my own thoughts about the extent to which Republicans have lost their way, specifically regarding the election.

 

[BugI02]

A good bit? More than a little, less than a lot. Perhaps because that is most of what I've seen? What evidence have you seen that proves fraud?



I know.



How close is required to see? What is the minimum distance a poll watcher should be able to stand? And yes I'm serious. 6 ft? 3? 1? Spooning the poll worker? Sitting in their lap?

And I haven't seen jack in the Constitution about poll watchers, perhaps you can point it out to me?

[I haven't seen 'jack' in the constitution about vote by mail, either. I would expect both are covered under the states authority to conduct elections as the legislature sees fit. Point?]

And if it violates the respective states law, I've got no problem with it being prosecuted. But it's not evidence of fraud, suspicious behavior perhaps.





I can pretty much agree.

*.*

 

[BugI02]

I understand that you need to appear fair and balanced to yourself. I don't think you understand how that is perceived by others.

Well, if he's sitting on a fence he's likely got the 'balanced' part under control

 

[jamil]

Yes, when that 'process' is altered for partisan advantage into a system riddled with the opportunity for fraud, we are right to seek its destruction - and republicans didn't start us down that road you may recall. We were quite content with in person voting after positive identification and accurate maintenance of the voting rolls. You know, the kind of constitutional 'disenfranchisement' by inconvenience that democrats were always on about

You cannot fight for inhgerrently insecure amendments to voting rules while resisting any and all attempts to close the loopholes that lead to cheating and expect people to continue to accept that they aren't being screwed

But you know that. The rest is Kabuki

I'll just say it. If someone believes that Democrats were completely innocent about pushing mail-in voting, but think that Republicans are the bad guys because Abbott allowed only one collection box per county as an attempt to suppress democrats' votes, I'd say that's ideological partisan bull****. It's probably at least a little true that Abbott was trying to make the voting system more advantageous to Republicans. It's probably at least a little true that Democrats were trying to change laws to make it the voting more advantageous to them. If you're not willing to admit all the things that are obviously true, so that you can think your side smells the best, then it makes it obvious that your membership in your side has colored your perspective, and made it unreliable.

 

[buckwacker]

This is common complaint for those who think outside the majority of a given group in which they partially identify. I agree with Alpo. The Republican party has lost it's way. I'd go further in depth, but I'm going to need a wavier from a mod or at least a couple members to speak freely.

As long as you're willing to give it a good faith balanced go of it, it wouldn't bother me to hear what you have to say. If it's "Republicans bad Democrats good", well, that would indicate some sand remnants. But I have my own thoughts about the extent to which Republicans have lost their way, specifically regarding the election.

Was going to respond but jamil pretty much said what I was going to say.

 

[T.Lex]

That kind of stuff is playing within the rules, though. ID requirements, ballot harvesting (within the applicable rules), motor-voter registration, all of it.

As long as each side knows what demographics are more likely to vote for them, their GOTV (Get Out The Vote) efforts will be focused on those demographics.

At the end of the day it comes down to getting people to register to vote then converting those registered voters to vote for your party in the election.

 

[BugI02]

For me, it is the Dominion audit trail. That's a structural issue.

Honestly, cases involving ballot harvesting, dead people voting, and out of state voters are important - and worthy of investigation - but won't produce the results necessary to change the outcome.

Structural problems? Hell yes.

But ballot harvesting and lack of meaningful and secure voter verification as well as poor maintenance of election rolls and interference with poll watchers are also that 'death' of the way we elect representation that Alpo is [STRIKE] screeching[/STRIKE] talking about, it is just the death of a thousand cuts

Edit: TBOI

 

[jamil]

[I haven't seen 'jack' in the constitution about vote by mail, either. I would expect both are covered under the states authority to conduct elections as the legislature sees fit. Point?]

Continuing my point above, I just want all the election rules followed equally on both sides. If the law says they have to let observers oversee the count, then the observation would need to be meaningful. Getting nitty about, well, what does that mean? The minimum distance has to be specified? C'mon. That's ridiculous. The purpose of observers is to make sure no one is cheating. So reasonably close enough to be able to determine that. But I can see where they might want to try to maintain social distance, and require masks or shields. Fairly applied. That's what I ask. If it's not, then they have a grievance. I don't want to see one side claiming "fraud!" where there really was non just to prevent a losing vote to be certified, as a means to victory. I also don't want to see people secretly counting votes and using tricks to keep observers away to hide it. I kinda see both things happening.

 

[jamil]

That kind of stuff is playing within the rules, though. ID requirements, ballot harvesting (within the applicable rules), motor-voter registration, all of it.

As long as each side knows what demographics are more likely to vote for them, their GOTV (Get Out The Vote) efforts will be focused on those demographics.

At the end of the day it comes down to getting people to register to vote then converting those registered voters to vote for your party in the election.

But it's more than that in reality. The complaint about Abbott was playing within the rules. The legislature gave the Texas executive branch power to make those kinds of decisions. One complaint the Republicans have that I agree with is that some states used Covid to change laws that would tend to be more favorable to cheating. If we're talking about what ought to happen, I agree. It should just come down to getting people to register and then getting those people who registered out to vote.

I'll admit I'm biased against mail-in voting because that just has so many ways to go wrong, and all those ways will favor Democrats. I mean, if we have ****ty standards and it hurts both sides evenly, I guess it doesn't matter as much. But if one side gains an advantage by decreasing the integrity of the election, that's pretty ****ty. And I'll give Alpo his due that it was kinda ****ty for Abbott to limit drop-off boxes to one per county. But then I'm not all that fond of mail in voting, because there are way more ways for people to cheat.

 

[JettaKnight]

Skeptical Jetta wonders how much of of an ass were these observers being? In the run up there was all sorts of claims about the, "teh Dems will stealz the election!" and I can't help but think about how much animosity that put in the minds of both sides.


I watched these videos of testimonies, with a slight whiff of, "Mom! She touched me!" I wonder if these sides were acting like kids in the back seat.


If I'm trying to do an honest job, and you come into my office and accuse me of cheating (or the SW eng. equivalent) right off the bat, well of course I'm going to do what I can to get you off my back.


I dunno. Everything has two sides. And more and more people can't act like civilized adults.

 

[BugI02]

I'll just say it. If someone believes that Democrats were completely innocent about pushing mail-in voting, but think that Republicans are the bad guys because Abbott allowed only one collection box per county as an attempt to suppress democrats' votes, I'd say that's ideological partisan bull****. It's probably at least a little true that Abbott was trying to make the voting system more advantageous to Republicans. It's probably at least a little true that Democrats were trying to change laws to make it the voting more advantageous to them. If you're not willing to admit all the things that are obviously true, so that you can think your side smells the best, then it makes it obvious that your membership in your side has colored your perspective, and made it unreliable.

I don't think you give sufficient consideration to what I'll call the 'blood feud' side of human nature, for want of a better term. It is my opinion that the more one side in a disagreement is subjected to what it feels are unfair conditions, constraints, decisions etc. and just has to **** it, the more incensed and unreasonable they become given the next indignity. With enough reps that sense of 'we're not going to take it' can preclude any rational solution to a disagreement because there is just no room to move on that side. It just seems it would behoove whatever side has the upper hand to moderate their own behavior, but everyone seems to believe their triumph is structural and permanent and books like The Emerging democratic Majority are ... unhelpful, as is the belief demographics are destiny (see Trump's inroads with blacks and especially hispanics).

I think if we are not at the brink, we are quite close to it. I don't see a way down off the ledge, not since Grant's terms for Lee has anyone been gracious in political victory

I say 'Let them fight'. The last time the absolute defeat of one side did kinda settle things for 160 or so years

 

[jamil]

Skeptical Jetta wonders how much of of an ass were these observers being? In the run up there was all sorts of claims about the, "teh Dems will stealz the election!" and I can't help but think about how much animosity that put in the minds of both sides.


I watched these videos of testimonies, with a slight whiff of, "Mom! She touched me!" I wonder if these sides were acting like kids in the back seat.


If I'm trying to do an honest job, and you come into my office and accuse me of cheating (or the SW eng. equivalent) right off the bat, well of course I'm going to do what I can to get you off my back.


I dunno. Everything has two sides. And more and more people can't act like civilized adults.

Well, from that one lady's testimony from MI, I'd say at least a little. And she may have had some legitimate complaints. But she came off to me as a very annoying person to work around. She didn't want to wear a mask, but would comply if someone provided a shield for her. Well. C'mon. You're there to do a job and follow the rules. Rules say you have to wear a mask/shield. It would probably have worked out better if republicans hadn't recruited observers from the Sarah Palin fan club, youbetcha. I could see where people would not feel all that comfortable around her. But they're there to do a job too, despite their discomfort.