The remarkably bizarre narrative that Dems rigged the election.

Do any of you still believe that Dems 'stole the election'?

Think about what it would entail on a national scale to alter the outcome?

To accomplish that would require months of advance planning, the recruitment of both republicans and democrats to cooperate in a vast conspiracy in at least a dozen battleground states ( because no one can predict the final 2 or 3 battleground states) in order to rig the election for a DEMOCRAT. And, to do that, we would expect that they would be able to do it clandestinely, that the observers,both right and left, would be part of the conspiracy, and no one would leak, noting that many are volunteers, all with the threat of being caught and being sent to prison. To get those volunteers, a call would go out, and surely repubs would catch wind of the scheme and plant shills to bust the operation wide open.

There is no way in hell it could be pulled off, there are many different systems, it would be a logistical nightmare.

The more we scrutinize what would have to occur in order for a massive rigging to occur, the more absurd the idea becomes.

Not to mention Trump is the only president in history to accuse his opposition of such a thing.

Oh, and for those of you who assert dems accused repubs of rigging the 2016 election, they did, but not via internal tampering, which is almost impossible as I've already explained, they did it via external means, which is very possible, though it is'nt technically 'rigging' it's undue influence, such as excessive purging of voter registration rolls which disproportionately affect blacks (such as the Interstate Crosscheck program, which was so bad it was stopped by a federal judge). These external methods are explained in great detail in the film ( free on Amazon Prime VIdeos) 'Rigged' and 'The Best Democracy Money Can Buy".

 

Wasn't there a line today that after all of the election fraud claims were refuted point by point someone still said something like "in my heart I still believe the election was stolen". I think that is the belief that evidence will never overcome. I watched a segment on Youtube that was discussing this and there were some interesting points made. Really more of a psychology question than a legal, present the evidence type of issue. I think the people that still believe the election was stolen will never change their minds based on evidence alone.

 

A lot of people "believe" a lot of things...
https://civicscience.com/bigfoot-is-real-for-11-of-u-s-adults/

 

Which is why this thing is a colossal waste of everyone's time. Again, who are they trying to prove it to, themselves? That's actually a good deal of it. We have massive denialism by the party in power with their hands being the ones that fostered the conditions for the crisis. However, I've lately had a different, more nefarious partisan take: We Americans typically vote the leading party out of power at the onset of the crisis's, but this allows said expunged party(mostly democrats) to be on the other side after republicans either fix it or couldn't fix the democratic situation.

The way to take away that democratic talking point is to keep them in charge with the onus to fixing it. That is, they should keep their majorities until 2028. If their way of life is correct, it should be bore out eventually. And if the democratic theory is given all of the space to fail, liberals can no longer say 'those damned evil republicans'

 

In a way Trump is right, he just has the wrong party. IMO Republicans should NEVER win since they always compose a small minority trying to rob/exploit the larger majority. The only way they ever win is to cheat. Their latest tack is to build that cheating right into our elections via the election law

 

I believe in Bigfoot, and aliens, but neither of these things are a threat to democracy.

Or maybe they are? hmmmmmm

 

NO, it's not why. bigfoot isn't threat to democracy. Believing in bogus claims about rigging elections erodes confidence in democracy, which erodes a core American value, democracy.

 

Yes, I think it was Brian Kemp who had gone through each false claim, but the scary thing is he was talking to a lawyer friend. If someone like that can't be convinced by reason.... That moment really stood out to me.

 

Oh! I don’t know!


Couldn’t resist

 

I think there is a large dollop of “my guy can’t be bad” but that does not mean that feeling lasts forever. Disillusionment can set in - example - find someone today who admits to voting for Bush

 

Bill Maher occasionally has a bit on his show called, "I can't prove it I just know it's true." What you've described about The Following's blind faith regarding election fraud can be applied to the entire construct they believe in. The through line being there is no factual basis for virtually anything they believe. Especially when it comes to two subjects surrounding Trump. Election fraud and the two investigations in to Trump/Russia, Mueller's and the SIC's.

 

Its turning out to be a classic case of "blame others of what you do". Trump tried to steal the elections with his fake electors and God knows what other tricks.

 

He failed, get the fock over it. Have you seen the polls of ordinary Americans? 1% of Americans have elections as a top priority (that would include this issue). The ONLY reason that you guys bring up this guy dozens of times a day is because the MSM tells you to. You are a fringe of a fringe element. The average American view Jan 5th hearings as akin to Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burns. You may believe this will help you win midterms or prevent Trump from running in 2024 but it certainly will not. This will all be swept away when Republicans take power in 2023.

As a DeSantis person I would rather Trump not run in 2024. I have seen nothing but win after win for DeSantis and a willingness to punish his enemies in real economic ways.





https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/...e-donald-trump-as-the-gops-combatant-in-chief

 

No it wouldn’t lol

All they would need is less than two dozen operatives and a bunch of printed out pieces of paper.

Again… this is how the democrats cheated.

First we have to understand how the process of mail in ballots work. When a mail in ballot comes in, it is in an envelope inside of another envelope. It is brought before a bipartisan group and opened. It’s separated from the outer envelope and then separated from the inner envelope. ALL identifying information for the ballot is on the inner envelope. The bipartisan group checks the information on the inner envelope with the voting records and then the envelope and the ballot are separated. The envelope is boxed and shipped for storage while the ballot (again with no identifying information on it) is then boxed and shipped for counting. At this point it is an IMPOSSIBILITY to tell one ballot from another or whose ballot it was.

Now this is how the democrats cheated. The democrats used their position to get templates of the ballots. They then made tens of thousands of copies of those ballots and filled out the top of the ballot. They then boxed those ballots in the exact same kind of boxes the legitimate ballots are boxed in.

The democrats then went to massive democrat districts in certain swing states and they put anywhere from 1-2 operatives on the floor. One person as the guy who’s legitimate job it is to move boxes of ballots from the staging area to the counting floor. And one person as a counter.

They then proceeded to wheel in the fraudulent ballots along with the legitimate ballots they were wheeling in throughout the course of the night.

Not only would this only need to be done in a dozen or do counties, but it wouldn’t take that many operatives to pull off. Furthermore, The ONLY way to definitively identify this type of fraud is with a signature verification audit comparing the number of envelopes with the ballots. If this occurred there would not be enough legitimate envelopes to account for the number of mail in ballots.

But we weren’t allowed to do that because every time we tried, the democrats fought tooth and nail to stop it.

 

You’re welcome to show me how we know the type of fraud I just described didn't occur. What process did we engage in to verify that fraudulent ballots weren’t introduced into the count AFTER the ballots were separated from the envelopes but BEFORE they were counted?

So is anyone else.

 

I wrote a long and detailed reply to you on election fraud, covering every point you raised, and you ignored it. Now you're continuing to claim fraud without evidence. Are you like the guy from last night's hearing, who having had every conspiracy theory debunked, said "I just know in my heart they cheated"?

 

Baloney.

2000 Mules and drop boxes stuffed with manufactured votes. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

Election laws being illegally changed resulting in millions of illegally cast votes.

Democrats are notorious for cheating in elections then denying it happened.

Why does the OP feel the need to defend this after this much time?

Like they say, the guilty dog barks the loudest.

 

I didn’t ignore it. I assure you. I may not have seen it but I didn’t ignore it. Give me a phrase from it and I’ll search it and respond.

 

Bigfoot is a committed environmentalist and the Aliens support all our Space programs, particularly to watch the skies for asteroids. (They only have limited resources so we have to be ready to divert the one they know is coming ourselves)

 

Was that the advice you gave to Repubs when they went on their seek and destroy mission of Hillary over matters of infinitesimally less significance than what Trump did?

 

Apparently the US population disagrees with you. The midterms are about to be a blood bath with the democrats losing the house and the senate. Your leader is clueless and is leading the democrats into a deep abyss.

 

OK, I take that back then. I'll just copy the exchange here since it's basically on topic:



I asked what evidence supported your suggestion of the fraud method you outline above. You said:
Well there’s plenty of evidence from statistical irregularities to sworn affidavits to video evidence of ballots being counted after hours and other staff were told to go home… there’s just no proof without an audit.


I said:
I'd say one problem for Trump is that he was so outrageous in his scattergun claims, like more people voted in some county than there are registered voters, 5000 dead people voted in some state, the Arizona audit found huge fraud... all claims which are easily debunked. Many more claims than that. Bamboo ballots, ballots counted multiple times, suitcase of fraudulent ballots under the desk; those are just the ones off the top of my head. After all of that, it is hard to take seriously, "Oh but THIS could be the real fraud". But of course, that doesn't mean you're wrong.


Staff being told to go home - if you mean in Georgia, here's an article on that: https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/...der-a-table-after-poll-workers-dismissed.html.
"There was never an announcement made to the media and other observers about the counting being over for the night and them needing to leave, according to Watson, who was provided information by the media liaison, who was present. She said they just followed the "cutters" as they left.
She said:
"Nobody told them to stay. Nobody told them to leave. Nobody gave them any advice on what they should do. And It was still open for them or the public to come back in to view at whatever time they wanted to, as long as they were still working."


Statistical anomalies I'll look at one claim, which was filed by the Texas AG with the Supreme Court: “The probability of former Vice President Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States — Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin — independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,”

Here's a fact-check: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...nalysis-supporting-pro-trump-case/3877743001/

In short, the analysis behind the filing ignores variation of party affiliation by geography and method of voting. Given how strongly mail-in votes (counted later) skewed to Biden, that is a fatal omission. One quote: “The analysis assumes that votes are all independently and randomly distributed ... This is going to be used in undergraduate statistics classes as a canonical example of how not to do statistics.” And that was filed with the Supreme Court! You'd presume they would use the strongest statistical evidence they could muster.


The affidavits: a number of them were basically hearsay - "Somebody told me this". One of the most famous, by Melissa Carone, was investigated and her claims were found to be false - the ballot numbers didn't reflect what she was saying. It may be significant to note that it's very rare to be prosecuted for perjury on a statement which isn't filed in court. Here's an article about the affadavit issue with a little quote below: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/20/affidavit-giuliani-vote-fraud/

"But a closer look at the affidavits showed that many did not allege any wrongdoing with ballots. Instead, they showed poll challengers complaining about other things: a loud public-address system, mean looks from poll workers, and a Democratic poll watcher who said “Go back to the suburbs, Karen.”
"Some poll observers had become suspicious simply after seeing many ballots cast for Democrats — in Detroit, a heavily Democratic city where Biden won 94 percent of the vote. “I specifically noticed that every ballot I observed was cast for Joe Biden,” one observer wrote. The Trump campaign filed that as evidence in court."


The second bit:
YOU:
But I think the most damning evidence is the Democrat’s own actions. They have fought tooth and nail to prevent a signature verification audit everywhere it’s been mentioned. They went so far as to SUE the Arizona recount and force them to either go through months/years of litigation to get a signature verification audit or sign an agreement where the democrats said they could look at ANY aspect of the vote they wanted… EXCEPT a signature verification audit.

Now why would they do that?


ME:
That's a decent question. Firstly, and obviously, no side wants any recount once they've been declared the winner. That's just human nature. But more specifically, maybe it was a question of proportionality? How much it would cost and how long it would take vs what is the evidence was that it was an actual problem? It would likely be a long and contentious process, with lawyers from both sides potentially arguing over every ballot. There was a need, at some point, to end the process of challenging the result, and given the very extensive list of Trump misstatements about fraud, you could perhaps understand a sentiment of "Hell no, we're not going to waste weeks/months on yet another of his crazy theories."

Make sense?

 

I’m not attempting to defend those things as being proof of fraud. I’m saying they were evidence that something underhanded went on.

Evidence that at the VERY least is justifiable grounds for an investigation. But really the point is moot. We don’t need a reason to be able to audit the vote. The only reason we need is to ensure the integrity of the election. That in and of itself is grounds for investigation.

On top of that we have one party who is obstructing the ONLY definitive method to determine whether or not there was fraud in the vote by doing a signature verification audit. That is the ONLY method through which to definitively know whether or not fraud occurred. The democrats obstructed this method at EVERY turn including going so far as to sue the Arizona recount to make sure they weren’t already doing a comparison of the envelopes to the voting records and to require them to get democrat permission to do so or face a lawsuit.

I agree with you. It’s very possible all of those elements described that you explained were not nefarious and were completely legitimate. It’s exactly like when Barr laughed off 2000 mules the other day in testimony. His reasoning was that it’s POSSIBLE that all of those phone pings were legitimate and contractors accounted for a large part of them.

I agree it IS possible it’s not nefarious. But it’s ALSO possible that it IS nefarious. But without an investigation and a thorough audit of at LEAST one disputed county where we can look at everything, it’s an impossibility to state for certain whether the vote was legitimate or not.

 

One of my biggest hangups is that he didn’t campaign lol. For the last 6 months to a year he didn’t campaign. He got 10,000,000 more votes than OBAMA. The lefts messiah and first black president and all that. And as much as I hated Obama, the man was a tireless worker and campaigner. He had one of the greatest ground games in political history. With volunteers knocking on doors for YEARS. He pulled in massive crowds when he spoke and was a sure fire guarantee for anyone he showed up on the trail beside. Which he did all the freaking time.

But Biden LITERALLY did not have ANYBODY knocking on doors until a MONTH out from the election. He didn’t campaign. He didn’t show up at events. When he did show up at events he could barely fill a high school gym if that.

And they expect me to believe that a man who had literally zero ground game and didn’t campaign pulled in 10,000,000 more votes than Obama? That’s bullshit. That’s wholesale bullshit.

 

Yes, it's theoretically possible something nefarious happened. That is always the case. You can't prove a negative. Your problem is, since you don't dispute anything in my analysis of your red flags, that there is NOTHING strongly suggestive of fraud. In that case, why go to the huge trouble and time and expense and contentiousness of signature verification? If you want to argue that signature verification should be SOP in elections, you can make that case. But in the current system, I can't see any justification for taking that step in the way you are suggesting.

You avoid the question of all of Trump's lies about the election, but they are a significant part of the story. He behaved really disgracefully in his response to the election. So I'm afraid people like you find it harder to make your case because of the disgust that is felt for someone who tried to cling to power in such a way.