Election 2020 The Final Countdown v. Nov. 3rd

[dalpat077]

oh sure. i was just pointing out the odd situation where people get madder at the media for reporting something troublesome than the troublesome thing itself...

alasdair

Not mad (my initial feelings on the topic in my original post may have been an overstatement). It was a third rate heckle attempt by PBS is all.

 

[alasdairm]

Are you saying Kayleigh tells pork pies? She promised she wouldn't you know.

well, no surprises, but that was a lie.

alasdair

 

[dalpat077]

I've yet to see even evidence of fairly insignificant voter fraud.

All I've seen is some minor irregularities the kind of which happen every year.

Also, notice how trump has made several conflicting arguments about what fraud there actually is. He's just trying to throw whatever he can at the wall hoping something will stick.

But that's the big problem he has. He doesn't have to convince conspiracy theorists. He has to convince trained judges. And his bullshit just doesn't fly in that context.

The fact is, no matter how many alt facts you wanna believe. There's just no evidence of anything even remotely approaching the kind of fraud or incompetence that would come even close to trump winning.

He lost.

Are you getting worried or something? I'm quite calm now about all of this!

Parts emboldened:

It's called the shotgun approach. And something will stick with each and every salvo. It may just not result in him remaining President comes January is all. Ironically that's not going to change a thing. If anything: it's going to make things worse (which I know is beyond the comprehension of most on this thread I'm sure). Hard as this may be to even conceptualize: there's more than just a few who are even more patriotic and fanatic than Trump. And they're going to be feeling just a tad disenfranchised not to mention empowered by all of the shenanigans. I keep telling you: he's not stupid.

Something that caught my eye and resounded with me the other day was a post by somebody or the other, on Quora, who has (apparently anyway) met with Trump and "even dined with him" and then went on to list 15 reasons to NOT like Trump (in answer to a question "Why do some people dislike Donald Trump?). And while the person certainly doesn't paint a rosy picture of the man it was her last point that was actually on point:

"15 - He loves the Confederate flag. Both my mother and father’s family homes sat squarely in the path of Sherman’s march across Georgia. But I know what that flag stands for — stoking the fires of racial division and hatred. Even the state of Mississippi has abandoned it. Not Trump, whose family arrived 20 years after the Civil War.

I could go on. But No. 15 is where to focus — it’s the most dangerous and appears to be the only card Trump has left to get re-elected. So far, it’s not working so well."

That was posted in October (for the record). I don't know the man (obviously). But sure does sound kinda "Trumpish" to me. As for her closing statement of "So far, it's not working so well". We shall see I guess. We shall see.

 

[dalpat077]

well, no surprises, but that was a lie.

alasdair

But she promised?

You do of course realize that this is not the first time I've brought this up and the intention is only to get a rise out of some. I just like the way she lies is all!

It's the people that know she's probably economical with the truth (far better choice of words) at times, and that don't give a shit, knowing full well it's just a part of the political theatrics, that are not going to simply disappear off the face of the earth if Trump isn't inaugurated in January.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

BTW why is BL so shit now with all the formatting and text quotes etc?

We recently upgraded the site software just to irritate you.

/high-fives the other staff

 

[JessFR]

We recently upgraded the site software just to irritate you.

/high-fives the other staff

Does he know yet that it only affects him and not us?

 

[dalpat077]

I see this thread unusually quiet. Whatever.

Sat on my hands the whole day in a crass attempt to not add fuel to the fire (one way or the other) but I just cannot.

Most here know what the definition of insanity is right?

You gotta love this. Georgia. Anonymous mail in or absentee ballots basically. So I'm guessing at best: the only verification that can be done, if any that is, is to ensure no duplicate ballots (signatures). So we recount all of the same ballots. Again. You people sure do have a lot of faith in the integrity of your fellow Americans and Politicians. Not even prepared to do a sample audit. But Trump has no valid reason for losing his shit or suspecting foul play? EVEN IF it didn't change the results: it's a fundamentally flawed process. No matter who wins: the ballots have spoken. Not the people.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

Most here know what the definition of insanity is right?

I was under the impression there was some signature verification process with the initial count. As for subsequent recounts, why are they even happening?

We keep going around in circles with you.

You've yet to explain why you (or the Trump administration) are convinced that widespread fraud took place when there is no evidence of it.

The definition of insanity is repeating the same action and expecting a different result... Yet I keep responding to you.

 

[mal3volent]

BTW why is BL so shit now with all the formatting and text quotes etc?

It's actually better than it's ever been , you're probably just not used to it yet.

 

[JessFR]

I was under the impression there was some signature verification process with the initial count. As for subsequent recounts, why are they even happening?

We keep going around in circles with you.

You've yet to explain why you (or the Trump administration) are convinced that widespread fraud took place when there is no evidence of it.

Yea I'm pretty sure there was 2 initial signature verifications.

The logic seems to go "the system isn't 100% perfect, therefore we should keep looking until we can 100% rule out any fraud or mistakes anywhere whatsoever".

The fact that it's just not plausible that there's so much fraud as to change the result doesn't matter cause the point is to just keep questioning it until it says what they wanna hear.

It's not gonna matter though. They can keep casing doubt, they can keep pretending the result wasn't what it was. President elect Biden is still the winner.

 

[mal3volent]

I see this thread unusually quiet. Whatever.

Sat on my hands the whole day in a crass attempt to not add fuel to the fire (one way or the other) but I just cannot.

Most here know what the definition of insanity is right?

You gotta love this. Georgia. Anonymous mail in or absentee ballots basically. So I'm guessing at best: the only verification that can be done, if any that is, is to ensure no duplicate ballots (signatures). So we recount all of the same ballots. Again. You people sure do have a lot of faith in the integrity of your fellow Americans and Politicians. Not even prepared to do a sample audit. But Trump has no valid reason for losing his shit or suspecting foul play? EVEN IF it didn't change the results: it's a fundamentally flawed process. No matter who wins: the ballots have spoken. Not the people.

you do know that there are multiple reports now that Trump knows this whole thing is bullshit right? He's doing it to get back at the Democrats for the Russia hoax. It's just a show at this point.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

Something I don't understand, if the signatures were verified initially what is constitutionally preventing verification during the recounts?

 

[JessFR]

Something I don't understand, if the signatures were verified initially what is constitutionally preventing verification during the recounts?

It is too dangerous to allow everyone's vote to be on record in an identifiable way. If it was, someone could threaten you to vote the way they want.

By the ballot being secret, that won't work, because you can always say you voted they way they wanted and they can't confirm you're lying.

For this reason, after the signatures have been double checked, the signature and the corrisponding vote are separated. So they can't later be used to prove who voted for whom.

It's part of how the election is kept fair.

Which means after the initial verification you can only confirm how many votes each candidate got. Not who voted for them. Pretty much all democratic governments use a secret ballot.

But that means you can't then recheck the signatures later on. Once they've been validated, that identifiable information is destroyed. So that nobody can use them for voter intimidation and retribution.

Also note how none of these "just want it to be fair" trump voters care at all about ensuring the integrity of the states trump easily won.

They don't care about voting integrity anywhere other than the areas needed to throw out to get trump reelected.

Because it's not about electoral integrity. It's the reverse. It's about stealing trump another term.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

Okay, gotcha.

The verification process for non mail-in ballots wouldn't be able to be verified for the same reason. That makes sense.

It seems like they can't make up their minds which part of the election was fraudulent. Was it the signature verification process? Was it missing Trump ballots? Was it added Biden ballots? Was it dead people voting? It HAS to be something, apparently.

Something I find funny is: both candidates had a record number of votes.
Trump received more votes than Obama did in either term. He also got way more votes than he did in 2016. So why assume there are a substantial amount missing?

@dalpat077, do you know the definition of insanity?

 

[JessFR]

Exactly. They are sure there's evidence of fraud even though they can't even decide what the evidence is.

Not to mention that what they say has happened and they can prove when they aren't in court is dramatically different to their claims in court. Funny how they suddenly say a lot less when they would be committing perjury by lying.

As I said the other day, it's the conspiracy theory method of just burying you in crap "evidence" to try and make you not think about it and just accept the premise.

 

[JessFR]

Trumps a sinking ship. Time to get the people who can still see reason and who's loyalty is to America off the ship.

And let the rest drown.

 

[dalpat077]

@dalpat077, do you know the definition of insanity?

Same as your definition in your earlier post pretty much i.e. doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result (that being the classic definition as I understand it) (and was in reference to simply recounting the exact same votes). Posting on this thread an alternate definition though.

Oh well. Maybe I’m still not understanding the process then. Bullshit baffles brains they say.

Just for the sake of interest though: I make the assumption that the Electoral College Electors’ votes are not anonymous right? That is a real question by the way i.e. not a dig at anyone.

 

[alasdairm]

'We Will Follow The Law': Michigan Lawmakers Defend Election After Trump Meeting

We will follow the law and follow the normal process regarding Michigan's electors,
...
Michigan's certification process should be a deliberate process free from threats and intimidation,
...
Allegations of fraudulent behavior should be taken seriously, thoroughly investigated, and if proven, prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And the candidates who win the most votes win elections and Michigan's electoral votes. These are simple truths that should provide confidence in our elections.

(my emphasis)

indeed.

alasdair

 

[birdup.snaildown]

Just for the sake of interest though: I make the assumption that the Electoral College Electors’ votes are not anonymous right?

From what I understand, sometimes they're not anonymous (depending on the state) but they pretty much always vote according to the popular vote.

I found this. Thought you might find it interesting.

"The Supreme Court made it clear that the elector is not there to vote his or her conscience. The elector is there to vote how the state dictates," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California-Berkeley Law School. "Most states now forbid faithless electors."

Supreme Court rules:Presidential electors can be forced to uphold popular vote

At least 32 states and the District of Columbia have laws that attempt to bind the votes of electors. Those states are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Here's what faithless electors are and what they could mean for the outcome of the presidential election

In the Electoral College, \

www.usatoday.com

EC voters that cast against the popular vote (or refuse to cast a vote) are referred to as Faithless Electors.

Interestingly, 2016 had the highest number of faithless electors (including failed attempts) in 120 years...

10 – 2016 election:

• In Washington, Democratic Party electors gave three presidential votes to Colin Powell and one to Faith Spotted Eagle[41] and these electors cast vice-presidential votes for Elizabeth Warren, Maria Cantwell, Susan Collins, and Winona LaDuke.
• In Hawaii, Bernie Sanders received one presidential vote and Elizabeth Warren received one vice-presidential vote.
• In Texas, Christopher Suprun voted for John Kasich for president and another elector voted for Ron Paul, giving each one presidential vote. Suprun also voted for Carly Fiorina as vice president while the other elector voted for Mike Pence as pledged.[42]

In addition, three other electors attempted to vote against their pledges but had their votes invalidated:

• In Colorado, Kasich received one vote for president, which was invalidated, and the elector was replaced by one who cast a vote for Clinton.[43]
• In Maine, a Democratic Party elector voted for Bernie Sanders but was forced to cast a vote for Clinton.
• In Minnesota, another Democratic Party elector tried to do the same but was replaced by one who cast a vote for Clinton. The same Minnesota elector voted for Tulsi Gabbard for vice president but had that vote invalidated and given to Tim Kaine.

Note that the states with unsuccessful attempts (Colorado, Maine and Minnesota) are all included in my previous list of states that have outlawed faithless electors... but Hawaii and Washington are also in that list and there were faithless electoral votes in those states.

Faithless elector - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As a result of the seven successfully cast faithless votes, the Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Clinton, lost five of her pledged electors while the Republican Party nominee and then president-elect, Donald Trump, lost two.

Faithless electors in the 2016 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Zero faithless electors flipped parties in 2016... There is no reason to assume that democratic electors are going to vote for Trump and there is no reason to assume (since Trump is incumbent) that any republican electors would vote for another republican candidate... So, in order for Trump to win, there would need to be a whopping 75 faithless democratic electors voting for Sanders / Warren / Buttigieg / etc.

 

[dalpat077]

From what I understand, sometimes they're not anonymous (depending on the state) but they pretty much always vote according to the popular vote.

I found this. Thought you might find it interesting.

Here's what faithless electors are and what they could mean for the outcome of the presidential election

In the Electoral College, \

www.usatoday.com

EC voters that cast against the popular vote (or refuse to cast a vote) are referred to as Faithless Electors.

Interestingly, 2016 had the highest number of faithless electors (including failed attempts) in 120 years...



Note that the states with unsuccessful attempts (Colorado, Maine and Minnesota) are all included in my previous list of states that have outlawed faithless electors... but Hawaii and Washington are also in that list and there were faithless electoral votes in those states.

Faithless elector - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Faithless electors in the 2016 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Zero faithless electors flipped parties in 2016... There is no reason to assume that democratic electors are going to vote for Trump and there is no reason to assume (since Trump is incumbent) that any republican electors would vote for another republican candidate... So, in order for Trump to win, there would need to be a whopping 75 faithless democratic electors voting for Sanders / Warren / Buttigieg / etc.

Real nice post. Thanks. Seems as though we both find the same links give or take.

I guess what I was trying to figure out was if, in states where Faithless Electors are NOT bound to vote according to the popular vote, then were THOSE votes anonymous. In the other states where they are bound to vote according to the popular vote then THOSE votes could NOT be anonymous (otherwise how would they be penalized were they to be a Faithless Elector). But seems to me, and according to some of the information on your links posted, it’s almost a futile exercise anyway i.e. a Faithless Elector under certain circumstances, seems to me anyway, can just be dismissed and replaced with one that will tow the line in certain states where voting according to the popular vote is a requirement.

I think I’m “electioned out” now finally.