who cares

anyone that would rely on CNN or FOX deserves being made a fool

Yeppers I know... talking to @Repeat

who knows who cares

It really does hurt your credibility when some of your claims are so easily refuted

Smartmatic wasnt even used in the places where the filed the bulk of their cases. The company is not link to Dominion they are competitors.

Um... well Barr said they found nothing

And Barr is practically Trump's own private lawyer... so if he couldnt find fraud then...well it doesnt look good

Nope. Not accurate. Before you get to send the elelection machines to be inspected by private companies you need to establish a really good basis for that to take place. There is none.

SCROLL UP... Ive told you like 3 times. Not gonna do it again

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-elections-william-barr-b1f1488796c9a98c4b1a9061a6c7f49d

You are missing the point. We can't just start turning election machines over to anyone that wants to check them out because they didnt like the results. We need you to justify that insanely expensive and massive an undertaking.

@james j, @JonasRobert is just trying to muck about. He/She is falling back on the logic that a single affidavit is technically evidence. And its true it is. But it does not mean that "evidence" is reliable or substancial enough to support the underlying claims. And Court after court, Judge after judge has told us that the "evidence" is NOT reliable, extremely speculative and in many cases even if true would not establish fraud.

Yes it is. Expensive, time consuming. And experts IT folks can disagree. Team Trump could find one to say he sees fraud. Team Biden could find one to say that IT guy is an idiot. It is RIDICULOUS to go down that path because Trump is butt hurt.

LOL see

But what he is not telling you is that these eye witness affidavits have been reviewed by judge after judge and they don't even meet the MUCH MUCH lower bar of a preponderance of the evidence.

To say there is "evidence" is really pointless here. You are playing a game of semantics, @JonasRobert . I absolutely agree that affidavits are technically evidence. But the might NOT be evidence of the claims in the lawsuits... which is exactly what the courts have been saying

Ohhh... I see so the Trump appointed judges are biased against him... LOL yeah ok

what is your evidence of that?

This is NOTHING like Bush Gore...

@JonasRobert I am not asking you to take my word for anything. We have court records now. We have rulings of judges that make it clear the "evidence" is crap.

Lots of people confuse evidence and proof. And I don't think you are... I think you understand the difference. But just because there are affidavits does not mean that evidence goes to prove the claim.

If I give an affidavit that I went to polling place X and I was treated poorly and I felt abused and I am just as sure as I can possible be that they threw my vote away or somehow changed it - it is technically evidence. It however is NOT evidence that would go to prove my allegation of fraud.

I wasn't lying in my affidavit. All of it happen. And I may truly believe my vote didnt get counted. But nothing in that affidavit goes to PROVE my allegation.

And this is what the courts are telling us. Just read the opinion. They are online. The complaints are online, the affidavits are there, the responses are online and the judges rulings are there.

Don't believe me... that is fine. You don't know me. But why dare you refusing to believe these judges who have weighed the evidence and found it severely lacking... why not believe them?

Disagree. Show we were they are not doing their jobs. So far I think we pulled off a stellar election

@JonasRobert you just said this "I also agree, the null hypothesis has to be that the election was fair. I think there are 2 broad categories of evidence. One is technical rule violations that took place. Like SOS changing election rules, poll watchers being kept at a distance, etc. I think there is a good argument to be made that these votes should be excluded regardless of any other evidence."

So what you are saying is your remedy to people complaining about the CoVid restrictions is to throw our the votes of citizens that did NOTHING wrong?

They followed the law. They cast their ballots as they were legally entitled to do. But because someone could not stand close enough to the poll workers those people's vote should not be counted?

Wow... ok. That is a working democracy... lol

I think lives take priority over someone claiming fraud with zero proof

And there is no basis is the law to do what you are asking

just from a legal point.... You are asking a court to assume that their was fraud simple because people were asked to stand back 6 feet. That is not how our justice system works... thank goodness

Individual votes found to be in violation are thrown out

Not huge batches or entire polling centers

never once happened

Im not new to discord. New to this group

thanks... nice to be here

No. I didnt. You are saying that because a polling place at the 6 feet rule in place all those ballots should be thrown out. Why? There is no specific law that requires they be within a certain distance.

BTW, I do agree its not ideal but we are in a pandemic.

The bigger issue is that you are suggesting we just assume that every single vote cast at one of these polling places that exercised the six feet rule be thrown out... not because you can establish fraud... but just because you don't think it was an ideal situation.

And that has never happened before.... nor should it ever.

We must assume that the ballots are valid. That is the starting point. If a voter did something to cause their ballot to be invalidated then yes.... those get disregarded every election. I am sure tens of thousands do. But that is because a specific ballot was found to have a problem.

We don't throw out every single vote cast at a polling place because a poll watcher didn't think they got to stand close enough.

That is nonsense.

That is your opinion. Excuse or not. Having them stand at a reasonable distance was not a violation of the law and even judges wrote in their orders it was fine.

I disagree. And so did the judges that heard those arguments.

Again, I have noted several times that is was not ideal. But Covid is real. Its not a left hoax. I know people who have died. Many poll workers and volunteers and they have a right to be protected.

Additionally, strictly from a legal standpoint, there is a significant state interest in protecting the health of theirs citizens.

There is no law that establishes the exact number of feet a person is to stand away.

There was no violation of the law.

To attempt to throw out the votes of millions of Americans on the assumption that something wrong happen because people were six fee away instead of two is asinine

So you say. Ive seen no evidence of that

No clue which one you mean

I agree... six feet is not ideal. Not suggesting that it is... But its not a violation of the law. Judges ruled on this real time. Team Trump went to court on election day to challenge this... judges said the six foot rule did not violate the statutes.

We were in a pandemic. I mean I dont know what you want me to say... it was not illegal. You cant just kick out an entire polling place because you didnt like the procedure.

Oh yeah... btw... this rule was in place all over the US... anyone complaining about it in states Trump won? No? Shocked.

I mean you guys do get that if you get to enforce this throw out all the votes in polling places that had the six foot rule that team Biden could do the exact same thing in Trump counties...

It is simply NOT a viable remedy to ignore the votes of an entire polling place on thsi six foot crap

LOL... yeah "a non zero number" LOL

now that is just embarrassing

I keep saying that I realize the 6 feet thing is NOT ideal. It does hamper the ability of the watchers. But what is the remedy?

This rule was in place EVERYWHERE. I live in a Trump State and we had the six feet rule in place where I live.

The remedy cannot be that we throw out the ballots where the six feet rule was in place ONLY in Counties where Biden won.

I mean come on now.

It was not a violation of the law. It make life much much more difficult for ALL the poll workers. No doubt. But the remedy is not to throw out all the ballots.

How many times do you guys need me to say that the the six feet rule made things difficult? We all agree on that. The issue is what is your remedy?

What states?

I live in a red state and we had the six feet rule

What is your remedy?

@JonasRobert what is your remedy?

Throw out ballots where they made watchers stand six feet back? Trump loses my state then

@JonasRobert No... sorry mate now your moving the goal posts. You have said that six feet makes the watchers basically null and void so we have to kick out the votes... so six feet, ten feet twenty feet. They are ALL null and void per what you have been saying all night.

You can't just dumb counties that went for biden

I have. Havent seen any. If you do let me know otherwise Im sure Im right

Ok... but we you have said several times that six feet is not close enough to observe

LOL shifting the goal posts... you have said several times tonight that six feet is not close enough and we have to throw out all those votes.

Then when I point out that this rule was in place in counties that Trump one and by your own logic we have to throw those your too.... you start saying... "well maybe six feet is ok, but more no bad"

That is some intellectual dishonesty right there my friend... @JonasRobert

Ok... let me ask it this way @JonasRobert does the six foot rule basically make the poll watchers moot, null, and ineffective or not? Yes or No. You have been saying it does for well over an hour now

@JonasRobert again... let me ask it this way.... AGAIN... does having the watchers six feet back destroy their effectiveness or not? We know that the Trump Poll watchers are saying yes. Do you agree with them or not?

@JonasRobert never mind... I found were you clearly said that six feet is too far.... so per your own logic we have to throw out every single vote at every single polling place that had the six foot rule in place

And @JonasRobert you are very simply moving the goal post because you backed yourself into a corner.
By your own statement you are saying, as I have shown you, that poll watcher kept six feet or more back could not do their job.

Your stated remedy was to throw out all of the votes where these poll watchers were ineffective because of the distance.

Now, we can't just throw out the counties were Biden won. So, how is this a remedy?

Ive agreed that the distance was a challenge and clearly lessened their effectiveness. It would be silly and dishonest to suggest otherwise.

But it is equally silly to say six feet is ok but ten is not.

It depends some workers do... some are volunteers...it just depends

@james j don't waste your time he clearly doesnt understand the distinction or he now realizes his position has been refuted and is unwilling to accept that... same with that Jaaaa dude

That is where people are goofing up too... So many people think that because the building has internet the scanners are connected. Not the case. This is where those thumb drives come in. The data is placed onto the drives then drives are then removed from the devices do that do the counting and taken to a computer that is connected to the internet to upload that data

Why?

@Dedkraken it can't be trust because Trump lost... lol

I wish I could show how many Trump supporters interviewed before the election that said if he loses its was because of massive fraud but if he wins it was perfect.... That is intellectual dishonesty

Im looking at WKHS... huge drop before market just because the announcement of the USPS contract has been delay. It will come back up as the announcement nears so I bought more at the open.

Oops... sorry wrong server

Thanks

LOL... what do you mean? is there some news about a pizzagate type conspiracy theory?

Bernie had a better chance in 2016 than this year, IMO. I think Trump would have mopped the floor with Bernie this year... well if Trump had not been so horrible at dealing with CoVid

No he can't do that... Each states are responsible for certifying their results and conducting the election.

No, a court could certainly rule that the a state allow the machines to be reviewed assuming there was some legitimate basis to do it.

Maybe. But he would have definitely won if he had handled it properly.

If it didnt happen at all I agree his chances would have been much much better

Yeppers especially if they are competent

Or rather handle it properly

Trump does not make that decision. The Supreme Court is a court of Certiorari so they are not required to take any case that is submitted to them.

The case in PA has gone as far as it can in the courts system in the federal system, short of the Supreme Court. So Trump could request the Supreme court review the lower court's decisions. The Supreme Court can take up the case and hear it. But they don't have to do so. If you have ever heard the phrase "Cert denied" it means that they Supreme Court declined hearing the case and the ruling of the lower court stands.

Do you really think that is a simple solution?

First, its not even a simple process.

Second, and more importantly, TRUMP WILL NEVER CONCEDE regardless of what a hand recount and signatures matched by experts.

He has no basis to scream fraud, right now. What makes you think that will stop him?

Trump does not actually think he won or that there was fraud. He knows by doing this he keeps his base (cult) right behind him ready to do his bidding and follow him.

If he truly believes there was fraud to the extent that he won "bigly" then he is more mentally warped than I even I thought.

I get he is a man child who never got told "no" his entire life. I get that his narcissism makes it hard for him to believe that he actually lost the election.

So whether he believe is or not is not terrible relevant. He is still screaming 4 years later that he actually won the popular vote in 2016, that he had the largest inaugural crowd in history, and that God parted the clouds on that raining day at his inauguration when he walked to the podium.

And THIS is the guy that we think will accept the results of signature matching (which is not an exact scientist and leading experts can disagree)

I mean... come on

Not to mention.... his cult members.
Go back pre-election and watch news clips of his supporters being interviewed about if they will trust the results if he loses:

I saw hundreds of interviews where they said that if he lost it would be rigged, but if he won then it was "perfect."

No one said "Well, we will have to see if there is anything suspicious". Nope, they flat out let us know that they will go into it thinking a loss for Trump equals fraud. A win for Trump equals perfect.

And this is a point that lots of people gloss over. The Democrats got their ass handed to them in Senate and House races and in State races.

I come from a very Republican family. I live in a very Republican State and masses of those Republics voted for Biden because of CoVid and that first Debate.

This is why I think Trump would have slaughtered Bernie. I really do... Which is exactly why he tried so hard in his campaign to tie Biden to Bernie.

Yeah... you are correct. They voted not FOR Biden but checked his name as a vote AGAINST Trump. Which would not have happened with Bernie or Hilliary.

Heck... even that little old widowed lady that her dead husband got accused of voting in Georgia said that:

They asked her how she voted and she said first said "Biden - well not as much for him but against the other guys (meaning Trump)"

People are missing the fact that masses of old school Republicans not only didnt vote for Trump but wanted him out so bad they held their nose and voted for Biden.

Im not so sure. I have always felt that Trump was more a symptom than the problem itself.

Having said that he gave lots of people the cover to act on their worst impulses.

I watched her previous one and she was not more calm... she got into an argument with one Senators

I find it rather naive and dangerous to not recognize that some human behavior is detrimental to the whole

I didn't say you were. I said that the position of not recognizing some human behavior is detrimental to society.

I really find it hard to believe this is an issue that needs debating.

Suppression of women in some cultures is the norm but its clearly detrimental, and not just to the women in that culture, as an example.

Or "tending to cause harm"

Probably? are you serious?

ok... wow. Not gonna waste my time further with that issue. Women get murdered for being raped in some places. And its accepted.

LGBT individuals get tossed into cages that are then lowered into a lake to drown.

But sure... that isn't detrimental at all

you muck be fucking joking

If you moral compass is so rusted as to not recognize those examples of APPROVED behavior as detrimental then I really do no see the point in discussing it further

Its a ridiculous perspective

and immoral

I think you like to act like you are more intelligent and "enlightened" than others all the while making ridiculous statements

Ok. Thanks for the chat @Doc

As if you had a choice in the matter

Not at all what I said. Sorry you misunderstood. I am more than happy to address most any issue.

However, when there is a fundamental conflict in basic facts such that "stoning women to death because they were raped" is not a real problem - then there is no basis to search for common ground.

Now, if you are telling me that stoning women to death because they were a victim of rape somehow benefits society then please do so.... I would love to hear it.

rephrase that for me no clue what you mean

Doc, do you think that RAPE is a form of infidelity on the part of the woman that was raped? Fucking really?

You are avoiding the issue

Are you suggesting that, in this example, that stoning women to death for being raped is beneficial to a society as a whole?
Yes or No (feel free to explain - but please preface your respond with a yes or no)