The problem with moratoria on fraud detection/prevention laws is that the line for that question is lowered considerably. IE: if we have no signature matching, and we uncover a few dozen examples of vote stuffing, we can be confident there is more, possibly a lot more. If there is assiduous signature matching, we can be confident that most fraud was caught.

With the Detroit poll book thing, I heard a report that 70% of the poll books don't add up. Is that normal?? And if so, what's the point of poll books or canvassing boards if we just say that looks ok to me?

With the mail-in ballot thing, we have an explosion in the rate of voting by mail, combined with a precipitous drop in the rate of acceptance failure. Both should track upwards in the normal case.

Just to insert my two cents here; with everything going on, the allegations and evidence coming out, the inability for this election to even come close to being reasonable when viewed through common sense lenses, and the overall background of the past 4-5 years of outright abhorrent behavior towards the president (and really any other person not of the left-leaning affiliation), I have little to no faith in this country's election process.

Yes, abhorrent behavior is something we should all eschew and condemn, Mr. Pot.

We should, that's why I'll call out the same on the right-leaning side too.

Although when you compare the two relevant to this election, the left-leaning groups are currently the ones to be more wary of. I mean, they more-or-less harassed vote officials in Wayne County to certify results. Although making kidnap plots against sitting elected representatives (e.g. Gov. Whitmer) is also something to worry about

I'm less sure about of whom to be more wary than I am about criticism of the president being a sketchy premise for an argument fraud claims.

Yeah, criticism of anything doesn't come across as a valid premise.

Criticism of the president equaling an argument for fraud claims (i believe what you're getting at) is also doodoo.

> Although when you compare the two relevant to this election, the left-leaning groups are currently the ones to be more wary of. I mean, they more-or-less harassed vote officials in Wayne County to certify results. Although making kidnap plots against sitting elected representatives (e.g. Gov. Whitmer) is also something to worry about
@DeathRhodes666 There's no evidence these guys were influenced by 'the right'... from all indications they were anarchists, antifa types

You know what, I do remember a video of the suspects where one of them said "F*** Trump" I believe. I'll have to dig up the video or articles to be sure.

We all make a big mistake when thinking everything is binary. Elections are binary unfortunately. Everything else comes from all directions. Just because they wanted to hurt Witmer doesn't mean they were Republicans, right-wing or Trumpistas

> @DeathRhodes666 There's no evidence these guys were influenced by 'the right'... from all indications they were anarchists, antifa types
@stevesirag this isn't true

@DeathRhodes666 I mean, it could show motive but that would certainly extend to clearly uninvolved parties, such as myself, and 'The Left' isn't a pragmatically tenable suspect. Also, every offense perpetrated against entities which I have criticized should have landed me in jail by now. Lol

There is plenty of evidence just Google it

Lots of right wingers say f trump

I'm a libertarian, I say it every day

Antifa types aren't going to be taking pictures with confederate flags or say "liberty or death"

(they are pretty explcitly "anti liberal" in the freedom sense)

This line of argument seems like bad faith tbqh

Saying "f trump" is not a sign of jack shit, every extremist (for good or bad) becomes a purist of some kind and denounces their milktoast leaders as not pure enough; does that mean they are of the _opposing_ side?

Some of the suspects are former military, and have expressed support for qanon or other stuff publicly

Can you see a "antifa types" doing that?

This line of argument just doesn't make any sense

:jackie chan face:

The only part of your argument I agree with is that it doesn't necessarily reflect on any of the larger groups which they may be members of (republicans, right wingers or trump supporters)

But you are so afraid of the crazy-veto and guilt-by-association that it is motivating you to think wrongly

You no longer have to be afraid of that

If someone brings up the crazy veto, just blame the riots on BLM supporters

If you're appearing in a training glorification video with your ISIS beard and the only thing distinguishing it from an Al Qaeda propaganda piece is your Oakleys, you're not antifa.

@Zuluzeit However, that is not an uncommon scenario for ex-antifa.

undergoing divergent radicalization

Just like McVeigh started out as a combat veteran, later libertarian, went to Elohim City and came out as....something completely different.

Would we then have called him 'antifa', as used in the current vernacular? Because as far far as I can tell, 'antifa' is interchangeable with 'communist' and encompasses whatever properties the right wing outrage du jour requires of it.

Hi Folks
i am not from US but this sh1t with the election got me really interested, curious to know since there are two truths told in the media, how solid is this case?
because if true this will have far greater reach and ramifications that just USA
thanks forlks

Depends on who you ask. For some, no proof is necessary. For others, no proof is possible. That's why we have to leave it to the courts.

in the media it says courts dismiss the cases, problem is i have no idea which media to trust 😄

i just googled sidney powell and i got this