Just saw this... more of an update than anything, if anyone is interested. http://www.pahousegop.com/News/18695/Latest-News/House-and-Senate-Republicans-Issue-Letters-Calling-on-Congress-to-Dispute-Pennsylvania%E2%80%99s-Electors,-Law-Enforcement-to-Review-2020-Election

It was actually that moment when I realized "There's things Guliani isn't talking about. Why?" When the senator asked Guliani this same question. He didn't talk about how MI votes jumped so high all of a sudden using the Colonel's testimony not too long before.

@Corndog it’s far more likely to be a sham attempt at trying to convince the public of voter fraud than actually proving voter fraud . We all knew this would happen if trump lost.

@james j ... @busillis is banished from the kingdom of @Corndog... might have to start getting my info off chans again...🤯

Nooo

@james j between Sheldon Wolin and Brian Kemp @Corndog is 100 % a Kemp fan.

Did you ever read the Executive order on marshal law if foreign interference was found in the election? https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-imposing-certain-sanctions-event-foreign-interference-united-states-election/

I am saying that without arguing them in court we don’t know. We have to default to the next best assumption, legislatures will act based on those assumptions and many may choose to not act at all. The reality is we just don’t know. So what is more reasonable? Pick a side or say we don’t know? My reasonable assumption is that we don’t have enough information and there are serious enough irregularities that have not been proven that we must wait for those to be heard before sending an elector. That would be my current stance, and the most reasonable one I can see going forward now without adjudication or a legislative referendum.

That's crazy seeing those two names even together ...

@Recalibar I am well aware of the kraken tale. It’s was disputed with the recount

Omg the messaging is everywhere

@Corndog they were not argued in court because they had no merit. Just listen to the testimonies it’s all just stories. Guliani never even argued he had fraud in court because he knew it would not pass scrutiny. Have you read or seek the court hearings. @Corndog

Well, this fact may come as particularly concerning to you; the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the heads of any other appropriate executive departments and agencies have about 12 days from now to convince Trump otherwise before he imposes marshal law.

@Recalibar he has no grounds to

Thats not entirely true, at least yet. Many are still pending and the ones that have been dismissed were not all based on merits, rather some other process.

But yes I have been following the cases and watching the hearings.

What story did you hear that could be verifiable ? @Corndog

Afk for a bit, but I'll keep tabs.

I doubt any will be verified in court. Why? How many are not plausible enough to cause reasonable doubt the election was flawed? Those cases must be adjudicated or it may cause legislatures to hold off sending electors. Best to wait and see.

Can anyone please explain what ICU capacity dropping below %15 means in Newsoms mandatory lock-down orders effective tonight?

It means there are less than 15% of the ICU beds available for new cases/emergencies I believe.

That’s been the Rudy plan form the beginning. It was never to prove any fraud happened. Just make a lot of noise and allude to fraud. (Make up a sham case that he knows would not survive court scrutiny) just to give cover for legislators to then put on a big show and write letters. This is all just political theater @Corndog

One issue is there are no defined metrics to quantify the first thing.

What is Merit?

What is ...

...

I mean maybe, but.... if you are wrong that would mean what exactly? What if there is legitimacy to one or more of the cases? My position is that we don’t have enough information. Yours appears to be that we do have enough information to have faith in the election. I don’t see how at this point but I will listen to what proof you can provide.

@Corndog, you just advanced to level 4!

contingent election

Counting ballots is political theater

I appreciate your feedback and value your opinion... For a decentralized approach - with no coordination, I think it would be even harder to pull off. Now instead of a single mastermind or small coordinated group of masterminds, you are saying that independently and simultaneously a bunch of people decided to effect the election on a scale so as to flip anywhere from 200k votes up to 4m+ votes as President Trump claims (giving him the popular vote, too).

Few things in life are beyond reproach - especially when dealing with humans who live in a capitalist society. Winning is everything. Winners succeed. If you're not cheating, you don't want it bad enough. Technology changes rapidly, voting happens twice a year maybe. Once every 4 years for President. Ensuring 100% is not realistic, but 99.99% is pretty good. Paper Ballots with risk limiting audits and the occasional recount achieves that.

The will of the voters should not be overruled on a suspicion. That makes no sense to me - especially since the only reason that there is any suspicion at all is because Donald Trump said there would be fraud. I hear things like "all countries know mail-in voting is fraudulent" and "mail-in voting is prone to massive fraud", but have found no supporting material. It may be that someone might be able to vote for a relative that might not be inclined to vote, because they know their specifics and their signature, but to think that kind of thing happens on a scale that would matter is not born out by what we are seeing. If there was an effort to scour the voter rolls and try to vote for people that are unlikely to vote - they would still have to alter where the ballot was sent to a place where they could pick it up and avert suspicion. That would be a daunting task and the likelihood of catching the perpetrators is very high.

@Corndog then you show fraud occurred just like you would expect fraud in every election. No election in history has ever been perfect. However to the effect it can change the results. I think that’s a tall tale.

Are the lockdown orders for 24 - 7 ? What are the rules of the game?

@inwa It probably means less than 15% beds available.

That is somewhat dramatic in an ICU

Where is the bread ?

That makes much more sense but odd that is would be worded that way being that usually capacity is described as being at or projected to be at or if it reaches 85% and so on. Beggs the question as to if the language is intentionally misleading.

@inwa It is how we word it.

We need to know what capacity is left.

Just pointing out that a repeal of S230 without a plan on how to transition would be nightmarish. Social Media platforms will be forced to censor everyone to protect themselves or no one, which means everything is fair game - bullying, doxing, porn, revenge porn...

below 15 is dramatic, because if you have, for instance, a pile up, you might be faced with a full ICU, and ICU-pts typically cant wait.