re: 2020 election fraud question

quote:

---

quoted Georgia election officials as contradicting our statement. I'm not sure what you don't understand.

---

No, you didn't, but I think I understand where you are confused. There were two different delays in vote counting.

In the morning delay, caused by water leaking into the room where the ballots were stored, no poll watchers were sent home. Ballot counting was just starting. You have somehow assumed that ballot counting in the morning started with no poll watchers present.

The evening delay was caused by ballot counters being told to go home, and then the Supervisor of elections telling them to get back to work. The poll watchers went home because they thought counting was done for the day.

Of course ballot counting restarted that night with no poll watchers there. That is the whole point of this discussion.

I have never changed the story on this, I just couldn't understand why you thought the morning delay was problematic. I still don't.

quote:

---

quote:
I am not aware of count stoppages in other states

I quoted articles for you

---

I didn't see those articles, and I'm certainly not going to look for them now, since you have proven that you don't understand your own sources.

But were they count stoppages, or reporting stoppages. There's a huge difference.

quote:

---

Reasonable people know these procedures should not be conducted without oversight which was the agreement prior to the election and why the Georgia GOP was upset. But I guess you would say they were upset over nothing

---

No, I would say they should be upset with their own poll watchers for leaving too early. The poll watchers were allowed to stay until the lights went out

You are clearly not one to be claiming what "reasonable people" should know. What I know is that the law does not require the poll workers to wait on the poll watchers to be present before they get to work. That's on the watchers.

I also know the multiple recounts have proven nothing nefarious happened with the counting while the watchers were absent. It is just routine work of running ballots through machines.

quote:

---

You have another source for this information?
Yes, independent oversight such as in the AZ case

---

Huh? So you don't get your information from the government or the media, you only accept independent audits? When did you figure out Trump lost, sometimes in 2022??

quote:

---

like you've been asleep for the last 3 years. The in person election day ballots don't need to be "verified." It was just cast by a real person who is a registered voter casting their own vote. The absentee ballots have a multitude of challenges for them to be "verified" and one of those challenges was the entire point of the question in the OP which you have absolutely gone off the rails about.

---

God you are stupid. We were talking about the physical act of counting the ballots, and how it is statistically impossible to count them correctly. You said in person votes were easier to count. That is idiotic. They are certainly faster to count, but the same mistakes will be made just due to the massive numbers

quote:

---

There have been multiple instances where fraud was found that was larger than the margin of victory.

---

No, there hasn't. There have been multiple cases where fraud was assumed, but the evidence found to be lacking.

Keep this in mind: opportunities for people to commit fraud are not proof that fraud actually occurred.

quote:

---

Absolutely not. Those were not independent investigations such as the AZ one which found an unbelieveable amount of problems

---

So, first of all, an investigation by Republican officials in this matter is worse than an independent investigation. That's bizarre

Second, the cyber ninjas in Arizona were biased and looking for issues. They found issues, but they didn't find fraud.

quote:

---

You are highlighting one of the problems - cases were filed regarding fraud but the but evidence was not allowed to be heard in court, some due to "no standing."

---

LOL. I point out that you totally misunderstood the article you relied on, and you pivot toward the ol' no one viewed the evidence theory

This is where you don't understand how court cases work. I have been litigating cases in federal courts for over 30 years, so let me clue you in...

First, in order to file a complaint for Fraud, you have to plead with specificity. You cannot just come into court and claim someone lied and you will prove it after discovery; for such an accusation you have to state when and where the lie took place and what the lie was. Otherwise, your case is bounced.

Second, Judges read the Complaints. If a judge read the Complaint and thought it had any merit, they would give the plaintiff an opportunity to correct errors such as standing.

I didn't read the opinions in every single case, but many of the dismissals didn't just state lack of standing, but also said the plaintiff made a bunch of conclusory statements without showing evidence to support their claims. Some courts even held evidentiary hearings before dismissing the cases on procedural grounds. So just saying "no court looked at the evidence" is false.

quote:

---

quote:
I watched every single minute of video pertaining to those cases under the table. They NEVER released the video that showed how they ended up hidden under that table

---

You are not quoting me there. I don't have 14 hours to waste watching every minute of the video. You were quoting eitek 1.

I responded to eitek 1 by providing a YouTube video showing how those boxes got under the table, with poll watchers observing.

quote:

---

Yet you have droned on and on about how there was nothing suspicious.

---

No, I said the security video that was presented along with someone falsely stating what the video showed was very suspicious. But it was investigated and explained.

quote:

---

Here you go: You tube video with frame by frame analysis of how those boxes got under the table

I've already said this multiple times in this thread, but that incident, and others, were investigated by the Republican SOS office, the GBI, the FBI, the Trump-appointed US Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, and then the Trump-appointed US Attorney for the Southern District. They all reported no evidence of fraud.

The shortened video looks suspicious, especially with Giuliani narrating it, but it does not show fraud.

---

Did you even watch the video (that I had actually already seen BTW)? Please tell me what exact time stamp that I need to go to for the frame by frame analysis. That video is a bunch of two second clips of people doing random things in that room.

Does it show a box being shoved under the table, yes it does. That particular shot is extremely tight and shows nothing else in the room when it happens. The shot before that shows the container open and then it cuts away to the second tight shot of someone sliding a box under the table. So yes, boxes were put under the table, no one is denying that and that video you linked proves nothing. BTW, after I saw that same report I scoured everywhere for that raw footage, it was never released. Shocker…

For all the folks that are denying the media was kicked then they kept counting, this video proves it happened.

In addition, explain this to me. That room has boxes piled everywhere. They are all over the place. Why do you think that as soon as those observers left the room the remaining people there descended on that table, removed the boxes and went to work? With all those boxes to choose from, are you telling me the ONLY boxes that were left to be counted were under the table? If they were underneath the table and hidden, how did everyone all the sudden realize the hidden boxes were there and must be counted right then?

Lastly, if this was such a big deal and there was such a simple explanation, why not release all the footage? They had a lot of it online, I watched every minute. They just didn’t have the part where they hid the boxes.

quote:

---

Trump got over 6 million votes in California alone. At the end of the day, those votes didn't count. They were effectively thrown out.

---

This doesn't explain the problem/answer the question

quote:

---

Because in many states they let the lazy people vote from their sofas

---

But how do we know that added up to 81mil votes?

quote:

---

if Trump couldn't even get more of the popular vote against Hillary Clinton, what makes you think he could get more votes than Biden?

---

Apparently he actually did according to the number of people who showed up on election day to vote in person. Besides, this doesn't answer the question

quote:

---

he NEVER got above 50% approval rating while in office

---

It's astonishing people think the actually means anything

As usual, another post with some irrelevant distractions and no answer to the question

quote:

---

The evening delay was caused by ballot counters being told to go home, and then the Supervisor of elections telling them to get back to work. The poll watchers went home because they thought counting was done for the day.

---

Thank you for admitting I was right. That is what I have been saying all along - there was vote counting when observers were not present. That should not have happened and looks suspicious. You have quibbled over this at enormous length but have now finally arrived at the conclusion that is bothering many people

quote:

---

I didn't see those articles, and I'm certainly not going to look for them now, since you have proven that you don't understand your own sources.

---

Well by all means keep being ignorant.

quote:

---

But were they count stoppages, or reporting stoppages. There's a huge difference.

---

Where have you been for the last 2 years?

quote:

---

No, I would say they should be upset with their own poll watchers for leaving too early. The poll watchers were allowed to stay until the lights went out

---

The workers were told to go home. Why would the observers stay?? Just to make sure the walls stay vertical? So the counters waited until the observers left and then went back to counting. But there's nothing suspicious about that.

quote:

---

What I know is that the law does not require the poll workers to wait on the poll watchers to be present before they get to work. That's on the watchers.

---

It's astonishing you can't understand what happened. Try to get this, it's possible, even likely, the observers would not have left had the counters continued counting. The observers were led to believe by election officials the counting was over. That's why they left. Then after they left, the counters went back to work. Explain how the observers were supposed to know that was going to happen? Just break out cots and sleep there all night in case some gremlins crawled out of the vents to secretly count votes. You aren't capable of admitting you don't understand it, are you? Is it just pride at this point?

quote:

---

I also know the multiple recounts have proven nothing nefarious happened with the counting while the watchers were absent.

---

So you just blindly believe the government. That's all you had to say.

quote:

---

It is just routine work of running ballots through machines.

---

VoterGA does not exactly agree with you

quote:

---

You said in person votes were easier to count. That is idiotic. They are certainly faster to count, but the same mistakes will be made just due to the massive numbers

---

We'll have to agree to disagree because what you're saying is completely idiotic. You can't run the same people through the voting machine over and over until you get the necessary tens of thousands of votes. You can't forge chain of custody by just hitting the vote button over and over on the machine without the totals not matching the number of signatures on the poll ledger. You can't have a cardboard cutout of a person vote on election day like all of the forensic issues with the mail in ballots. We could keep going but same day in person voting is much harder to manipulate than mail in ballots. Not even close. It's hard to believe you have this little understanding of elections

quote:

---

No, there hasn't. There have been multiple cases where fraud was assumed, but the evidence found to be lacking.

---

If you're referring to the court cases, "found to be lacking" is the problem

quote:

---

Second, the cyber ninjas in Arizona were biased

---

Prove it

quote:

---

and looking for issues

---

In other words, the same as every genuine audit ever conducted by anyone in the history of the world. Are you tacitly admitting the government run recounts weren't "looking for issues?"

quote:

---

They found issues, but they didn't find fraud.

---

Semantics.

quote:

---

First, in order to file a complaint for Fraud, you have to plead with specificity. You cannot just come into court and claim someone lied and you will prove it after discovery; for such an accusation you have to state when and where the lie took place and what the lie was. Otherwise, your case is bounced.

---

Do you imagine that wasn't stated in the cases up to this point?

quote:

---

I didn't read the opinions in every single case, but many of the dismissals didn't just state lack of standing, but also said the plaintiff made a bunch of conclusory statements without showing evidence to support their claims. Some courts even held evidentiary hearings before dismissing the cases on procedural grounds. So just saying "no court looked at the evidence" is false.

---

Judges are not always correct

quote:

---

Any chain of custody questions might provide an opportunity for fraud, but you still have to prove there was, in fact, fraud.

---

Fraud is not the bar. The bar is (should be) lower. Fraud implies intention. Even if votes were submitted incorrectly, that should be remedied in some fashion.

quote:

---

I am certain that no court is going to disenfranchise innocent voters who followed the rules in place.

---

And here you are highlighting how these cases are somewhat judicially novel. Judges had trouble finding who precisely was victimized and who precisely was at fault. There was no reason why there couldn't have been another election to clear up the monumental problems with the first election. No disenfranchisement is necessary. Everyone would get to vote. Why no judge ordered/suggested this is just asinine. Runoffs happen frequently.

quote:

---

In the Fulton County case it was found nothing improper happened.

---

According to someone who is clearly naive and believes state run recounts of already problematic ballots actually means something

quote:

---

I have read their reports, seen video footage, and watched two loyal Trump appointees reach the same conclusions.

---

You acknowledged that vote counting happened without observers.

quote:

---

I trust the investigations because they appear solid

---

To naive people. Not to reasonable people who can see the overall picture

quote:

---

I trust the recounts because poll watchers from both parties are there to prevent any funny business.

---

Having both parties there does not mean they are above suspicion or are competent nor does it mean they are performing a legitimate audit

quote:

---

And, yes, I rely on the media to give me the same running totals of vote counts as the election officials give them.

---

"Rely on" wasn't the question. Trust was the question. The question is about why anyone trusts that the information itself is trustworthy. You are ok with corrupt politicians telling you Biden got 81 mil votes. Reasonable people who have examined all of the fraud evidence can see the government is not being truthful

quote:

---

What I disagreed with was your claim that the delay in counting votes in the morning

---

I never said anything about the morning and I couldn't care less about that

quote:

---

I have already stated why it would be futile for anyone to answer your question.

---

Oh you answered it indirectly. And proceeded to dump a mountain of childish irrelevancies into the topic wasting an inordinate amount of time. You took what should have been a simple question and turned it into an exercise in absurdity

quote:

---

Why do you believe biden got 81 million votes? Can you produce the evidence or do you just blithely believe the government?

---

its 2023. do you blithley believe you are magically saved by the murder of a god?


of course most of us can do arithmetic.
you go ahead and add up just the states trump won.
now do a biden state.
pick one. now look at the recount. still good?
republicans demanded recounts.

get back to us if you ever feel doubt again.

pretend something else.
81 million people hate and despise trump enough to vote no.
81 million spit when his name is spoken.
the seditious conspirator is the all time slime of usa history.

I might as well be talking to the nearest brick wall, but here goes ...

In 2016, Democrats ran Hillary, the most despised woman on the planet. More than a few Democrats didn't vote for her, and hardly any independents did. More than a few people thought, "We don't need a politician. We need someone to run government like a business and shake things up." So, they voted for Trump. And he won.

Not a god damned soul claimed Trump stole the election. Many of us couldn't believe people fell for that conman, but he won the Electoral College vote, despite losing the popular vote by 3 million.

Over the next four years, he acted like the fricking buffoon he is. He let Putin drag his balls across his face in Helsinki. He put in tariffs that did NOTHING but hurt U.S. consumers. He fricking saluted a North Korean military officer. And I haven't even gotten to trying to coerce Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden or all of the other complete and utter nonsense that was his presidency. Remember him drawing on the NOAA map with a Sharpie, rather than admitting he misspoke regarding where a hurricane was going? What kind of fricking goofass does such a thing?

Then, we get to the election of 2020.

Democrats turned out in DROVES -- not to vote FOR Biden but to vote AGAINST Trump. Independents, those folks who gave him a chance in 2016, saw their monumental mistake and voted AGAINST Trump, too.

So, yeah, I have no doubt Trump united the entire political Left and most independents AGAINST him.

I have no idea why that is such a difficult concept to understand. Well, to admit.

And one more fricking thing ...

If Democrats stole the election, then, why, on earth, did they not steal some Senate seats?

quote:

---

NO WAY could Biden have taken any state not totally controlled by the DEM machine.

---

You mean Georgia and Arizona?

fricking idiot.

quote:

---

it absolutely should have spurred investigation but many times got blocked in the courts

---

It didn't get "blocked" in the courts. Five dozen courts ruled Trump's band of merry idiots had no evidence to back up their claims. Saying something and being able to prove it are not the same.