The remarkably bizarre narrative that Dems rigged the election.

You made an ad hom attack, not an argument.

 

Especially if those people are felons, dead, have multiple lives, have multiple registrations, are not citizens, are underage, etc, etc, etc.

 

I don't know where you get your info from but you don't need an approved reason and you don't need ID. Here's the actual form https://assets.publishing.service.g...3093/Postal-vote-application-form-English.pdf

You said none, not very few. But I see the next sentence talks about universal mail-in balloting so maybe that's what you meant. It's always tricky putting thoughts down clearly and interpreting clearly.

Again, the question is, what's the evidence that mail-in voting is actually used to perpetuate fraud in greater numbers than other voting methods?

 

You have apparently been disinformed. In fact, the US is notorious for election fraud/election rigging, and this has often "been a suspicious thing in the past". Am I supposed to have said that RP party bosses are too honest to rig an election?

For instance:

“The most recent presidential election that had rumblings of rigging was 2004. Two years later, Robert Kennedy Jr. published an article in Rolling Stone claiming that Ohio election officials had made decisions that stole the election from Democratic candidate John Kerry. (If Kerry had won Ohio’s electoral votes, he would have defeated Republican president George W. Bush that year.) But while some Democrats parroted Kennedy’s allegations, Bush’s margin of victory in Ohio – over 100,000 votes – led many to dismiss them.”
THE CONVERSATION, A ‘rigged’ vote? Four US presidential elections with contested results, By Professor Robert Peel, Pennsylvania State University, Published: November 1, 2016.
https://theconversation.com/a-rigge...ential-elections-with-contested-results-67824

Anyone who does not know how crooked the electoral process is in America should just blame the schools.

 

I stand at least partially corrected. It seems you can get a mail-in ballot for any reason. The phrase, "Return your form to your local electoral registration office." is a bit slippery. It implies you have to go to the office personally and I infer an ID would be required. But you should know so I'll go along.

This is actually a very significant point. There is purposeful confusion between wide spread (universal, unverified) mail-in ballots and the usually tightly controlled and monitored absentee mail-in ballots. The people striving for mail-in ballots -- and they mean everyone on the registration list and maybe then some get an automatic mail-in ballot no questions asked -- have diligently tried to conflate them with true absentee ballots by saying, "See?? What's the big deal?" when the two are light years apart. I personally am 100% in favor of absentee voting by mail as it is commonly practiced, and adamantly opposed to wide spread "willy-nilly" universal, "come one come all" mail-in voting.

 

Ah! Ok, I understand better where you’re coming from now. Yes, that does seem unnecessarily extreme to me. (And yes, the UK applicationjust gets mailed in; you don’t have to go to the office.)

 

Sure. None of us are mind readers. The point I made remains. Nothing has been investigated so theories and opinions, regardless of whether or not they are baseless, don't really matter. Nobody has the truth. They just think they do and say they do. It is part and parcel of the world of politics. No investigation, no facts. It is what it is.

 

This is simply untrue. Raffensberger testified the other night to the extreme efforts officials undertook to investigate claims of fraud.

 

Trump might have been more vociferous and might have exaggerated a bit (which is so common it is routine in political circles) but his accusations were far from conspiracy theories.. He was fully aware, as are 99% of people with a lick of intelligence and common sense, that mail-in balloting and things like drop boxes, ballot harvesting, and non-purging of registration rolls are direct and solid invites to fraudulent elections. He simultaneously watched the Democrats put on a concerted highly organized full court press for over a year to get as much of those things they could in as many states as possible. 2 + 2 = 4. Then he witnessed things such as a 15- or so point lead in PA at 11pm election night with virtually all of the Democrat stronghold precincts reporting shift to a 15- to 20- point loss by 5am. No fraud could he prove (fraud is extremely hard to prove in a court of law) but to anyone with a half-way decent nose it reeked and stank to high heaven. It is incorrect to apply "conspiracy theory" to anything so prima facie and grossly suspicious.

 

Here's an article addressing the same issue as your example, but different states. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-wi-pa-mi-vote-spikes-idUSKBN27Q307

"These vote spikes did occur, but they also included Trump votes, accounted for largely left-leaning urban counties, and one state experienced a clerical error.
...........
A spokesman for data analysis website FiveThirtyEight ( fivethirtyeight.com/ ) told Reuters via email that the jumps in Michigan and Wisconsin were due to counties releasing large batches of results all at once and that the votes were not just for Biden. One large jump of almost 140,000 ballots in Michigan was due to a clerical error that has since been resolved. In Pennsylvania both the Trump and Biden campaign gained around 1 million votes on the night of Nov. 3 to Nov. 4."

But to say Trump 'exaggerated a bit'? I'm sorry, that is not a credible characterisation. 10 dead people voting instead of 4 is exaggerating. 5000?

 

You are close to picking fly specks out of the pepper. Getting things wrong is not lying. If a credible source told Trump 5000 dead people then Trump's saying 5000 dead people, even if later shown to be incorrect, is not lying. (Even though this is not the metric that all the Trump lie counters used!) (Plus, how do you know for certain the 5000 number is not correct (or close)?) Kinda like saying something that is untrue is not perjury in court of law unless you knew factually that it was untrue, you told the untruth purposefully, and it had a material effect on the outcome.

A 140,000 vote tabulation clerical error ain't peanuts; it's massive, nay humongous, about Biden's winning spread in Michigan (which was huge compared to some other battleground states.)

BTW Factcheck has not been a credible source for many years now, though I can't speak for Factcheck-UK.

 

In general, I agree with you and am careful about the difference between lying and getting things wrong. But there are so many examples around the election that are so egregious, that I feel the word lying is appropriate. The 5000 dead people claim was corrected by Kemp in his evidence the other night (and previously); these corrections make little difference to Trump - he just keeps repeating claims after they have been publicly corrected (another reason I feel 'lying' is the appropriate word). There were several other claims Kemp corrected but I can't remember them off the top of my head - all wildly inaccurate.

The point about the tabulation error is that it was spotted and corrected, so the system worked.

Factcheck UK? It's certainly less contentious than the US, and is a less common thing. But Boris puts them through their paces every so often.

 

Talk about "cop-outs" You're the master cop-outer on this forum. Anything that challenges you dogma in any way you summarily dismiss.

 

Wrong

 

No, I always rebut. A cop out is a bogus rationalization for not providing a valid rebuttal. You do that, I do not.

I only dismiss invalid rebuttals (non arguments) and excuses not to respond. If you don't want to respond, then don't.

If you do, and it's not a rebuttal, but a non argument, I'll indicate it.

 

Then that begs the question of...if there was no evidence to present in the court cases between election day and Jan 20th, what evidence were all the vote fraud proponents using to justify their stance?

None, of course, because the whole thing was dreamed up by Trump as an ego defense and a fund raising opportunity. Plenty of Trump supporters and anti-Democrats were happy to go along with it, but I suspect many of the voters who claimed the election was stolen in public and on the internet didn't actually believe it in their own minds. It was just a battle cause to get behind, because that's what we do now in America, regardless of the truth.

 

Tell yourself whatever you need to keep that humongous ego in tact, you aren't fooling anyone.

 

The narrative isn't "rigged" anything. Democrats demonstrably broke existing law, in PA, in MI, in GA, etc. We have evidence, there's video, etc where these incidents took place. The issue was a condition of standing. As in, who can show there was a harm to you becuase of these illegal actions that courts didn't want to move past. It doesn't mean these illegal activities didn't happen, just that courts didn't adjudicate them, or in some cases, where AGs in the states did not.

You make so many false assertion in your post, it isn' surprising, No one should ever trust Jeff Bezos though. But you did. So funny.

 

I'm not going to take your word, or the word of some far right website or that famous anti-vaxxer Robert Kennedy. These allegations are shoddy and vague.

Donna Brazile now says she found “no evidence” the primary was rigged. Warren now says that though there was “some bias” within the DNC, “the overall 2016 primary process was fair.”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...rren-bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-rigged


Compared to the rigging afforded by Repubs, as revealed in the films "Rigged" and "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (both free on Amazon prime, specifically "Interstate Crosscheck", your concerns pale to what Republicans did in 2016. IN fact, if you a really are concerned about it voter shenanigans, you'd look to your own party, but, since you don't give a damn the cheating your party does, you have no leg to stand on. Some call that hypocrisy.

But, none of the items you refer to equal 'tampering with the ballot' though they to might rise to 'undue influence' in some circumstances. There have been many attempts of undue influence in the last 200 years, it's called 'hard ball politics'. this is not the same thing as what Trump is accusing democrats of.

The charge by Trump was that Dems stole the election via tampering with the ballot apparatus.

That's a historical first.

Know the difference.

 

You're either not getting or just ignoring my material point. To develop fraud case of this magnitude with a good chance of success would probably take a team of lawyers 6 months to a year given all the research, fact checking, dispositions, corroborating evidence, briefs writing, holding preliminary court hearings, etc, etc, etc. There was zero chance any Trump team could have presented and won a fraud case like this in one moth's time; that's why they didn't even try.

 

And you ignored mine. According to you, there was not enough time to accumulate evidence of election fraud. So if there was no evidence because there wasn't enough time to gather it, what was the basis for the accusations and the attempt to alter the election results? Surely something as serious as changing or postponing the results of a lawfully conducted election would require at least SOME kind of evidence that is available before the need for lengthy investigations. But there wasn't. Not once. Not ever.

And it's also worth mentioning that it is now 1 and a half years later and that supposed evidence still has not materialized.

 

What make you automatically accept without doubt or question Kemp as a credible source? For example Trump claims Kemp stole his election (as I understand it). Kemp says he didn't. DUH! Both can't be right...... or maybe both can be right depending on what "stole" means.

 

So, according you, allegations of a "fraudulent election" can be made with no evidence because you can go find the evidence after making the allegations?

You have absolutely no idea how litigation works.

 

The basis for the accusations were considerable evidence and tons of solid reasonable suspicion. However, that doesn't have much effect anytime soon in a court of law. I as a credible witness can be standing right next to a guy as he robs a bank. It'll still be a year before he gets convicted, and that is with irrefutable cold hard eye witness evidence. Getting all the necessary things needed to prove fraud is magnitudes more difficult than my simple example.

 

I never said no evidence. There was tons of evidence. Just none that could win a court case of fraud. I have a very good idea how litigation works.