With so much at stake and so much misinformation around it seems that all election officials were put on high alert, making sure procedures set up to detect and avoid election fraud from happening.
And guess what it seems to have worked.
But of course Trump being Trump and Trumpers being Trumpers have a lot of difficulty dealing with either reality or rules that don't work out in their favor are kicking up conspiracy after conspiracy in a vain attempt to roll back reality.
The result: currently Trump is 0 for 14 in court challenges. No evidence. Thrown out.
But this is all part of the playbook. Like Obama before, Republicans simply don't recognize the legitimacy of any government other than their own and we can look forward to at least four years of this from the "Eff-your-feelings" crowd. I was told to "get over it" in 2016 and now it is their turn.
Yeah...but no judge is going to cancel an election based on partisan observers' say-so. Need hard evidence. That photo printout Rudy flashed in a Newsmax interview the other day purportedly showing unsecured loose ballots being delivered to Detroit vote counting may be something.
But put on your skeptic hat: if "fraud" is in the news, a whole bunch of eyewitnesses will spring out of the woodwork to swear they saw it, just like a whole bunch of eyewitnesses sprang up to swear that Judge Kavanaugh raped them
And so many people popped out of the woodwork to say the Russians meddled in the last elections. How many years did it take to show that was a complete lie. By the democrats.
And so many people popped out of the woodwork to say the Russians meddled in the last elections. How many years did it take to show that was a complete lie. By the democrats.
But Russia did. So apparently not enough time to get through every thick skull.
100% of election officials interviewed testified that election officials don't commit election fraud. So that settles that...
Seriously - this is a junk article. Read the affidavits Rudy is collecting. Some of them probably misunderstood what was happening around them. Others observed real fraud happening, and there's no way around it without calling them liars.
Do you not understand what 0 for 14 court challenges mean? There has been no evidence of any tampering *at all*. Even Trumpie's own lawyers backed down from claiming there any fraud whatsoever during this election process..
Rudy? He is obviously demonstrating senility. He's incompetent as a lawyer. He is only there to do the showboating.
Yes, there is real fraud. But it is a minuscule pittance and will not change the election outcome. Every case so far submitted by Trump campaign lawyers has been thrown out because the brilliant legal team has not submitted any evidence to back the claims. The lawyers do this because they're getting paid, not because they believe it, but getting paid means they're willing to clog the cour
Your reading comprehension isn't very high. From the article you cited:
None of the votes affected by Thursday’s ruling had yet been included in the state’s official tally
In other words they "won" nothing whatsoever. Not only was there no evidence of fraud, but there was not even any allegation of fraud. The decision merely was validation of a rule that as yet hadn't be broken.
And it probably escaped your notice that the ballots thrown out are not even known to be Biden votes or Trump votes.
You stated: "currently Trump is 0 for 14 in court challenges." which is obviously a false statement as I presented you with an example of a successful court challenge.
Yeah well the numbers are pretty fluid. A quick look at the Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] article currently shows 18 dismissals, drops, rejected or denied. The rest are still ongoing but the record is worse than what I stated and will get worse still.
Add to that that the major lawfirms working for Trump or the RNC are declining to participate any more because they don't want to ruin their reputations by filing frivolous lawsuits. They are pulling out because they don't want to be associated with fraud.
Yeah but keep clinging to that "successful court challenge" that didn't affect anything if that is what you need to feel better.
That Wikipedia page doesn't even list the Pennsylvania court orders to allow poll watchers to actually watch the counting.
They were already watching the counting. They complained that they couldn't get close enough to see signatures, which is not what they are there for, but a judge let them do it anyway just to shut them up. Teapot, tempest.
They complained that they couldn't get close enough to see signatures, which is not what they are there for,
Election observers are not there to observe the election? Really?
That's not what I said. You never have valid arguments, so you have to use logical fallacies like the straw man to seem like you do, which only fools dumbshits. They are literally not supposed to be able to see who voted how, which is what happens if they get close enough to see signatures.
You appear to disagree with the judge. Not to mention of course that validating that signature verification is happening in a legal and appropriate manner does not require sight of the actual ballot.
But hey, what do I know. I've only been an independent election observer.
Yep. That happens a lot. There's a lot of different types of corruption in the court system. Institutional bias is a well-studied problem.
Not to mention of course that validating that signature verification is happening in a legal and appropriate manner does not require sight of the actual ballot.
So then why did the observers need to get closer? By your own words, they didn't.
But hey, what do I know. I've only been an independent election observer.
You don't know what you're saying, that's for sure.
there is no harm in allowing a recount to assure those who think otherwise
There's no harm in recounts where valid questions exist. There no harm in recounts where there is reasonable evidence to question the legitimacy of the count.
But neither of these conditions hold in this election.
Those who "think otherwise" are moronic fuckheads who refuse to grasp that they lost by a wide margin. And giving even a millimeter to these fascist scumbags harms this country by giving them unearned and unwarranted legiti
The Trump hating BBC put out a guide to spotting vote rigging. Step back, look objectively at it and ask yourself, does the 3rd November election flag up any of their warnings? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/wor... [bbc.co.uk]
I'm not a moronic fuckhead that refuses to grasp that I lost, because I didn't lose. I'm just refusing to accept a media narrative that everything was rosy and that there was no fraud and that it's not suspicious at all that for the first time in US election history six swing states all stopp
I do care whether there's proof. I thought I made it clear that I want other people to stop telling me that nothing happened while refusing to properly investigate all the shit that clearly did happen and that, from the vantage of an independent country, looks exceedingly dodgy.
The Trump hating BBC put out a guide to spotting vote rigging. Step back, look objectively at it and ask yourself, does the 3rd November election flag up any of their warnings? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/wor [bbc.co.uk]...
Ok let's have a look!
Gabon's opposition says it was cheated of victory, after official results showed a turnout of 99.93% in President Ali Bongo's home region, with 95% of votes in his favour. Elizabeth Blunt has witnessed many elections across Africa, as both a BBC journalist and election observer and looks at six signs of possible election rigging.
Hurr sounds exactly the same to me!
None of the other things apply either. Other than maybe delayed results but that's clearly because many places aren't allowed to count anything until after the election.
The Trump hating BBC put out a guide to spotting vote rigging. Step back, look objectively at it and ask yourself, does the 3rd November election flag up any of their warnings?
I can see how ill educated moronic fuckheads would think so. But truth is, no, it doesn't raise any flags - nor should it to any educated person who has bothered to grasp that circumstances alter cases.
I'm not a moronic fuckhead that refuses to grasp that I lost, because I didn't lose
I think the Trumpeteers don't care if it's valid or not, they think the wrong person won and it's worth breaking the country over it. I suspect some of them honestly believe the delusion that they're saving the country from communism, and to them that is more important than democracy or the rule of law.
I think the anti-Trumpers don't care if it's valid or not, they think the wrong person won in 2016 and it's worth breaking the country over it. I suspect some of them honestly believe the delusion that they're saving the country from fascism, and to them that is more important than democracy or the rule of law.
Have you seen what right-wing media has been like in recent years? It's a constant sea of "Radical leftists!" and "Socialist democrats!" headlines, talking about how the liberals want to destroy America because they hate wealth, hate Christianity and hate white people. Steep in that for long enough, and most people would become both angry, and convinced that the only way to save their country is to destroy the enemy that threatens it from within.
Good question - the general rule is that it's the opposite of whoever is answering the question. The protests were of what could fairly be called a left-wing alignment, yes - but that doesn't mean the rioters were. Sometimes a riot just needs a good excuse for people to turn up and have a good time.
To be fair... us elections are always rigged. In a legal way. It's called the electoral college and favors the low-population rural areas and states over the high-population areas. This is how in the US conservatives get an edge over progressives, and therefore we got Bush instead of Gore in 2000 and Trump instead of Hillary in 2016 - candidate with least votes wins.
Can you imagine what that would have meant for the world, had the people's voice actually counted? Gore instead of Bush - no useless war in Iraq and collapse of the state of Iraq - no Isis, no global wave of Islamic terrorism, no civil war, atrocities and cultural heritage lost in Syria. Instead, more environmentalism and common sense.
Hillary instead of Trump - no constant barrage of fake news from the White House, no strengthening of global populism, no backup from US for crooks like Bolsanaro in Brazil and Orban in Hungary, no fawning towards Vladimir Putin and questionable links to Russia, no wave of nutjob conspiracy movements like QAnon. Instead, more common sense in the world.
The messed up US democracy has cost the world 12 years of idiocy vs. common sense in the White House with global impact.
Gore instead of Bush - no useless war in Iraq [...] Hillary instead of Trump
Wait? You don't want useless wars but you did want Hillary?
Meanwhile,
no Isis, no global wave of Islamic terrorism, no civil war, atrocities and cultural heritage lost in Syria
Wrong President. Those all happened under Obama not Bush. While the instability in Iraq was undoubtably Bush (and Blair) he wasn't the cause of Bin Laden, the expansion of violent Islamic terrorism, the instability in Egypt, Libya or Syria.
no strengthening of global populism, no backup from US for crooks like Bolsanaro in Brazil and Orban in Hungary, no fawning towards Vladimir Putin and questionable links to Russia
Globalism is no better than global populism, and indeed a strong cause of it. Which crimes has Orban committed? Why is building friendly relationships with Russia wrong, and can you for the love of human
Wrong President. Those all happened under Obama not Bush. While the instability in Iraq was undoubtably Bush (and Blair) he wasn't the cause of Bin Laden, the expansion of violent Islamic terrorism, the instability in Egypt, Libya or Syria.
He wasn't the cause of Bin Laden and Al-Qaida. But the invasion of Iraq, weakening of the state and the disenfranchisement of the Sunni minority who were the previous ruling class, directly lead to the creation of ISIS, which in turn lead to the collapse of the states of Iraq, and civil war in Syria, the founding of the so-called "caliphate" and this global terrorist movement of ISIS followers. ISIS and all the atrocities committed wouldn't have happened without the invasion of Iraq.
You're operating under the assumption that the popular vote wouldn't change under a different system.
You get higher voter turnout in swing states because that's where political parties focus their efforts, you get higher turnout in urban areas because the people whipping people into a polling booth don't have to travel as far.
The "popular vote" is the count of who bothered to go down and vote, mostly in swing states. The moment you make the popular vote the winning vote is the moment that the right starts t
The electoral collage favors swing states, states with a narrow margin.
And it is not the electoral collage is not actually the issue. It is the crazy all-or-none system that gives all a states votes to one candidate, regardless of the proportions.
As the Democrats have more strong states than the Republicans, the system favors the Republicans.
I cannot remember the details, but some southern Republican state figured that if 40% of their votes where Democrat, why not just give 100% of the collage to Republica
To be fair... us elections are always rigged. In a legal way. It's called the electoral college and favors the low-population rural areas and states over the high-population areas.
I think that's more the Senate than the EC. The EC is somewhat skewed by having 100/583 electors distributed disproportionately, but overall I think that the combination fo the EC and (almost all) States awarding all their EC votes to the winner instead favors large States that are near the political median.
The division amongst people into separate factions is a much bigger problem because it's a distraction from our common enemy: the rich. If we don't get our act together and overthrow them, the Earth is doomed and billions of people, including regular people in the first world, will slide gradually to live in post-apocalyptic favelas struggling to eat. We already have janitors and Uber drivers living in their cars, and millions of homeless who get harassed and neglected constantly and belongings bulldozed pe
I look forward to making sure those screaming "Eff-your-feelings" are actually the fragile snowflake crowd. Look at trump, he can't even process he lost and everyone around his is waiting for "his feeling". Screw them, they have royally screwed up all kinds of stuff in the US, especially regarding coronavirus and I have no empathy for them anymore.
The only way to learn a new programming language is by writing programs in it.
- Brian Kernighan
It isn't that remarkable really (Score:5, Insightful)
With so much at stake and so much misinformation around it seems that all election officials were put on high alert, making sure procedures set up to detect and avoid election fraud from happening.
And guess what it seems to have worked.
But of course Trump being Trump and Trumpers being Trumpers have a lot of difficulty dealing with either reality or rules that don't work out in their favor are kicking up conspiracy after conspiracy in a vain attempt to roll back reality.
The result: currently Trump is 0 for 14 in court challenges. No evidence. Thrown out.
But this is all part of the playbook. Like Obama before, Republicans simply don't recognize the legitimacy of any government other than their own and we can look forward to at least four years of this from the "Eff-your-feelings" crowd. I was told to "get over it" in 2016 and now it is their turn.
Re: It isn't that remarkable really (Score:2)
But put on your skeptic hat: if "fraud" is in the news, a whole bunch of eyewitnesses will spring out of the woodwork to swear they saw it, just like a whole bunch of eyewitnesses sprang up to swear that Judge Kavanaugh raped them
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And so many people popped out of the woodwork to say the Russians meddled in the last elections. How many years did it take to show that was a complete lie. By the democrats.
But Russia did. So apparently not enough time to get through every thick skull.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
100% of election officials interviewed testified that election officials don't commit election fraud. So that settles that...
Seriously - this is a junk article. Read the affidavits Rudy is collecting. Some of them probably misunderstood what was happening around them. Others observed real fraud happening, and there's no way around it without calling them liars.
Do you not understand what 0 for 14 court challenges mean? There has been no evidence of any tampering *at all*. Even Trumpie's own lawyers backed down from claiming there any fraud whatsoever during this election process..
Re: (Score:2)
Rudy? He is obviously demonstrating senility. He's incompetent as a lawyer. He is only there to do the showboating.
Yes, there is real fraud. But it is a minuscule pittance and will not change the election outcome. Every case so far submitted by Trump campaign lawyers has been thrown out because the brilliant legal team has not submitted any evidence to back the claims. The lawyers do this because they're getting paid, not because they believe it, but getting paid means they're willing to clog the cour
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Your reading comprehension isn't very high. From the article you cited:
None of the votes affected by Thursday’s ruling had yet been included in the state’s official tally
In other words they "won" nothing whatsoever. Not only was there no evidence of fraud, but there was not even any allegation of fraud. The decision merely was validation of a rule that as yet hadn't be broken.
And it probably escaped your notice that the ballots thrown out are not even known to be Biden votes or Trump votes.
That is not a win.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:It isn't that remarkable really (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah well the numbers are pretty fluid. A quick look at the Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] article currently shows 18 dismissals, drops, rejected or denied. The rest are still ongoing but the record is worse than what I stated and will get worse still.
Add to that that the major lawfirms working for Trump or the RNC are declining to participate any more because they don't want to ruin their reputations by filing frivolous lawsuits. They are pulling out because they don't want to be associated with fraud.
Yeah but keep clinging to that "successful court challenge" that didn't affect anything if that is what you need to feel better.
Re: (Score:2)
That Wikipedia page doesn't even list the Pennsylvania court orders to allow poll watchers to actually watch the counting.
So that's another successful court challenge. It's hard to suggest others as the media are doing their best not to report on any of this.
Re: (Score:3)
That Wikipedia page doesn't even list the Pennsylvania court orders to allow poll watchers to actually watch the counting.
They were already watching the counting. They complained that they couldn't get close enough to see signatures, which is not what they are there for, but a judge let them do it anyway just to shut them up. Teapot, tempest.
Re: (Score:1)
which is not what they are there for
Election observers are not there to observe the election? Really?
Re: (Score:2)
They complained that they couldn't get close enough to see signatures, which is not what they are there for,
Election observers are not there to observe the election? Really?
That's not what I said. You never have valid arguments, so you have to use logical fallacies like the straw man to seem like you do, which only fools dumbshits. They are literally not supposed to be able to see who voted how, which is what happens if they get close enough to see signatures.
Re: (Score:2)
You appear to disagree with the judge. Not to mention of course that validating that signature verification is happening in a legal and appropriate manner does not require sight of the actual ballot.
But hey, what do I know. I've only been an independent election observer.
Re: (Score:2)
You appear to disagree with the judge.
Yep. That happens a lot. There's a lot of different types of corruption in the court system. Institutional bias is a well-studied problem.
Not to mention of course that validating that signature verification is happening in a legal and appropriate manner does not require sight of the actual ballot.
So then why did the observers need to get closer? By your own words, they didn't.
But hey, what do I know. I've only been an independent election observer.
You don't know what you're saying, that's for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
So then why did the observers need to get closer? By your own words, they didn't.
?
Because the signature is on the envelope and you can't read it from distance.
You don't know what you're saying, that's for sure.
On the plus side, unlike you I do know the difference between a signed envelope and the ballot it contains.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no harm in recounts where valid questions exist. There no harm in recounts where there is reasonable evidence to question the legitimacy of the count.
But neither of these conditions hold in this election.
Those who "think otherwise" are moronic fuckheads who refuse to grasp that they lost by a wide margin. And giving even a millimeter to these fascist scumbags harms this country by giving them unearned and unwarranted legiti
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh please.
The Trump hating BBC put out a guide to spotting vote rigging. Step back, look objectively at it and ask yourself, does the 3rd November election flag up any of their warnings?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/wor... [bbc.co.uk]
I'm not a moronic fuckhead that refuses to grasp that I lost, because I didn't lose. I'm just refusing to accept a media narrative that everything was rosy and that there was no fraud and that it's not suspicious at all that for the first time in US election history six swing states all stopp
Re: It isn't that remarkable really (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I do care whether there's proof. I thought I made it clear that I want other people to stop telling me that nothing happened while refusing to properly investigate all the shit that clearly did happen and that, from the vantage of an independent country, looks exceedingly dodgy.
Re: (Score:2)
The Trump hating BBC put out a guide to spotting vote rigging. Step back, look objectively at it and ask yourself, does the 3rd November election flag up any of their warnings?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/wor [bbc.co.uk]...
Ok let's have a look!
Gabon's opposition says it was cheated of victory, after official results showed a turnout of 99.93% in President Ali Bongo's home region, with 95% of votes in his favour. Elizabeth Blunt has witnessed many elections across Africa, as both a BBC journalist and election observer and looks at six signs of possible election rigging.
Hurr sounds exactly the same to me!
None of the other things apply either. Other than maybe delayed results but that's clearly because many places aren't allowed to count anything until after the election.
Re: (Score:2)
The polls were out by a significant margin for the second time, both times the vote for Trump was far higher than predicted.
This would suggest (but is clearly not proof) that, if there was fraud, it worked in Trump's favor, not against him.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see how ill educated moronic fuckheads would think so. But truth is, no, it doesn't raise any flags - nor should it to any educated person who has bothered to grasp that circumstances alter cases.
Yes, you are and yes, you did.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. What's fascist about "This election looks dodgy, let's investigate and assure that it was a fair and honest election" ?
Fascist is calling someone a delusional moronic fuckhead for daring to point out that a dodgy looking election looks dodgy.
What are you trying to hide?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I think the Trumpeteers don't care if it's valid or not, they think the wrong person won and it's worth breaking the country over it. I suspect some of them honestly believe the delusion that they're saving the country from communism, and to them that is more important than democracy or the rule of law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the anti-Trumpers don't care if it's valid or not, they think the wrong person won in 2016 and it's worth breaking the country over it. I suspect some of them honestly believe the delusion that they're saving the country from fascism, and to them that is more important than democracy or the rule of law.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen what right-wing media has been like in recent years? It's a constant sea of "Radical leftists!" and "Socialist democrats!" headlines, talking about how the liberals want to destroy America because they hate wealth, hate Christianity and hate white people. Steep in that for long enough, and most people would become both angry, and convinced that the only way to save their country is to destroy the enemy that threatens it from within.
Re: (Score:2)
Remind me, who was rioting and looting and burning cities and attacking federal buildings for much of the year?
But you missed my point. Read the comment to which I replied; basic hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:2)
Good question - the general rule is that it's the opposite of whoever is answering the question. The protests were of what could fairly be called a left-wing alignment, yes - but that doesn't mean the rioters were. Sometimes a riot just needs a good excuse for people to turn up and have a good time.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the most common line of all: "They Hate America!" The delusion is strong in them.
Re:It isn't that remarkable really (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair... us elections are always rigged. In a legal way. It's called the electoral college and favors the low-population rural areas and states over the high-population areas. This is how in the US conservatives get an edge over progressives, and therefore we got Bush instead of Gore in 2000 and Trump instead of Hillary in 2016 - candidate with least votes wins.
Can you imagine what that would have meant for the world, had the people's voice actually counted?
Gore instead of Bush - no useless war in Iraq and collapse of the state of Iraq - no Isis, no global wave of Islamic terrorism, no civil war, atrocities and cultural heritage lost in Syria. Instead, more environmentalism and common sense.
Hillary instead of Trump - no constant barrage of fake news from the White House, no strengthening of global populism, no backup from US for crooks like Bolsanaro in Brazil and Orban in Hungary, no fawning towards Vladimir Putin and questionable links to Russia, no wave of nutjob conspiracy movements like QAnon. Instead, more common sense in the world.
The messed up US democracy has cost the world 12 years of idiocy vs. common sense in the White House with global impact.
Re: (Score:3)
Gore instead of Bush - no useless war in Iraq
[...]
Hillary instead of Trump
Wait? You don't want useless wars but you did want Hillary?
Meanwhile,
no Isis, no global wave of Islamic terrorism, no civil war, atrocities and cultural heritage lost in Syria
Wrong President. Those all happened under Obama not Bush. While the instability in Iraq was undoubtably Bush (and Blair) he wasn't the cause of Bin Laden, the expansion of violent Islamic terrorism, the instability in Egypt, Libya or Syria.
no strengthening of global populism, no backup from US for crooks like Bolsanaro in Brazil and Orban in Hungary, no fawning towards Vladimir Putin and questionable links to Russia
Globalism is no better than global populism, and indeed a strong cause of it. Which crimes has Orban committed? Why is building friendly relationships with Russia wrong, and can you for the love of human
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong President. Those all happened under Obama not Bush. While the instability in Iraq was undoubtably Bush (and Blair) he wasn't the cause of Bin Laden, the expansion of violent Islamic terrorism, the instability in Egypt, Libya or Syria.
He wasn't the cause of Bin Laden and Al-Qaida. But the invasion of Iraq, weakening of the state and the disenfranchisement of the Sunni minority who were the previous ruling class, directly lead to the creation of ISIS, which in turn lead to the collapse of the states of Iraq, and civil war in Syria, the founding of the so-called "caliphate" and this global terrorist movement of ISIS followers.
ISIS and all the atrocities committed wouldn't have happened without the invasion of Iraq.
Which crimes has Orban committed?
The populists' playbook.
Re: (Score:2)
You're operating under the assumption that the popular vote wouldn't change under a different system.
You get higher voter turnout in swing states because that's where political parties focus their efforts, you get higher turnout in urban areas because the people whipping people into a polling booth don't have to travel as far.
The "popular vote" is the count of who bothered to go down and vote, mostly in swing states. The moment you make the popular vote the winning vote is the moment that the right starts t
The electoral collage does not favor unpopulated (Score:2)
The electoral collage favors swing states, states with a narrow margin.
And it is not the electoral collage is not actually the issue. It is the crazy all-or-none system that gives all a states votes to one candidate, regardless of the proportions.
As the Democrats have more strong states than the Republicans, the system favors the Republicans.
I cannot remember the details, but some southern Republican state figured that if 40% of their votes where Democrat, why not just give 100% of the collage to Republica
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's more the Senate than the EC. The EC is somewhat skewed by having 100/583 electors distributed disproportionately, but overall I think that the combination fo the EC and (almost all) States awarding all their EC votes to the winner instead favors large States that are near the political median.
IOW, it's the FL, OH an
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)