re: If Biden won 2020 legitimately

quote:

---

The same premise would hold for those claiming mail-in balloting can be carried out as corruption free as in-person voting.

---

But both things can be true.

I agree that the relaxation on mail in voting in many states absolutely opened the door for greater potential abuse than usual. We'll call that "opportunity."

Motive is obvious.

Means is where it gets questionable for me. We all know they dumped harvested ballots...there's video of it.

The question isn't whether they cheated or not...we know that they did. The question is whether the cheating led to an outcome that is different than what would otherwise have occurred. Did the cheating actually flip the election or not?

One would assume that the theorized fake ballots went to swing states, which Trump lost six of seven.

Trump lost:

Arizona by a margin of 0.309%
Georgia by 0.236%
Wisconsin by 0.627%
Pennsylvania by 1.165%
Nevada by 2.391%
Michigan by 2.784%

Is it possible for people at the polls to dump ballots so exactly that a candidate barely—by a razor-thin margin—wins the state that he otherwise would have lost? Six out of seven times?

The lowest number of polling sites in any of those states is 217. The most is over 9,000.

Is information available quickly enough to coordinate over 9,000 polling sites to dump just the right amount of fake votes for a razor-thin victory?

I know they count votes for weeks after the election, but that's typical...normal. It usually takes 2-4 weeks in any POTUS election, and I checked each of those swing states in the last four election cycles and every one of them was almost identical except Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, who took longer to count in the 2016 election.

So it appears that that's just how long it takes to count 3 million or 5 million or 7 million votes.

So it's the means that leaves me uncertain, and leaning toward a no. I just don't think it's possible to have coordinated it such that it deliberately produced the final result.

Someone is welcome to Change My Mind. I'm not definitely saying it didn't flip it. I just don't see what I would expect to see in that case.

Calling an adjective a “lie” doesn’t make the underlying point disappear. The burden of proof hasn’t changed. Evidence proving the election outcome was altered is still what’s missing, and every detour away from that fact only makes it more obvious.

quote:

---

Calling an adjective a “lie” doesn’t make the underlying point disappear.

---

Calling a noun an adjective is a mistake. Employing that noun as you did is a lie.

The good news is your promulgation of a lie does not necessary render you a liar. It is keenly evident you lack intellectual curiosity. It is evident you do not research contentions before promoting or engaging them. As such you'd be vulnerable to belief in lies Whoopi Goldberg or Joy Behar might forward regarding Trump's "armies" of lawyers.

quote:

---

which would be quite serious and significant

---

Sure, of course it would, but flipping one state wouldn't have flipped the election.

Look, it doesn't even need to have flipped the state in order to be serious and significant. Just the fraud itself—even if it was just one vote—is serious and should be prosecuted.

That's not in question.

The question in this thread is whether Trump or Biden won the election sans cheating (refer to the title of the thread).

quote:

---

The fact the question would even legitimately exist is appalling. It speaks volumes to the corrupt appearances in election handling, appearances of sequential cover ups, and the damage one side exerts with a "by any means necessary" attitude.

---

Nobody’s on trial for looking suspicious.

You’re a long ride from proving the outcome was wrong.

quote:

---

You’re a long ride from proving the outcome was wrong.

---

The election is over. The term is over. No one needs to prove “the outcome was wrong.” No one needs to even prove the system was exploited (it was). We just need to prove the system is exploitable. That’s already been done.

Fix the exploitable points.

You don’t even want to do that. Deep down in the places you don’t talk about at parties, Tex, you know. The fraud is there. And it’s driving results. And if we fixed the exploitable parts, you’d have to face it. So you (and the entire left) flails against any efforts to make a more secure system.

quote:

---

I disagree. Every bill, every EO, every political appointment - including Not a Biologist "Justice" KFC - needs to be nullified and reversed in whole.

---

This is why I think we will never be told the truth about 2020.

quote:

---

“The “books” are public records and have been open for inspection. There’s nothing there to find,

---

We’re not many “books” (records) destroyed? Certainly in Maricopa County. I’m sure elsewhere also. Some even though there were orders to preserve.

quote:

---

No one needs to prove “the outcome was wrong.” No one needs to even prove the system was exploited (it was). We just need to prove the system is exploitable.

---

Indeed.

quote:

---

That’s already been done.

---

At least to some extent. But until we find out exactly what went on, there may still be weaknesses which are, as of now, unrecognized.

That possibility (I would argue, probability) justifies continuing to look. Better yet, identify anyone who took advantage of exploitable systems, and bring them to justice.

You are 100% right in calling CP out. His lack of interest in simply investigating oddities of the 2020 election is disappointing. But "nuh-uh" is the game afoot.

When you have a situation, for example, like California, where a man from Vancouver can come down and vote in the state with no problem, document it, and California is doing nothing to remedy such an obvious lack of election security, it is infuriating. But "by any means necessary" is the left's mantra, and apparently CP's credo.

The problem is the potential cost to democracy.

The left is more interested in revising history than learning from it. Were that not the case, there would be lessons about unexpected outcomes, e.g., in the French revolution, which could be taken to heart. Once upheaval starts, it's end is unpredictable.

Combine that lack of interest in history with a pathological dearth of critical thinking, and you end up with LGBTQ2+ nitwits allying with islamists to attain an endpoint which will result in the nitwits being thrown off of building roofs.

C'est la vie.