Because Trump 2.0

[rmgill]

4 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If he did that now, his supporters will never accept it. OK, so they possibly will never accept it anyway. But the longer its dragged out, the more its self evident who he is, and the more his reasons for wanting to stay in power. If he wants to come back in 2024, the longer he leaves it, the less likely that could be. And ive no doubt he wants to.

Oh jeeze. Please, stop telling us what we're going to accept or not going to accept. Ok? Remember all those threads where I was citing a Briton about how they thought about something as a point of discussion and you told me I dodn't know anything and that so and so was a bad person to cite because you didn't like them? 

Put that shoe on and lace it up tight. 

4 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

His mask is now off, his motivation is now clear for all to see. Even Fox and the Republican party are being lukewarm as they transition to a post Trump era. The only people now supporting him are Pompeo, and frankly, the more damage they do their careers to put them permanently out of Government service, the better.

There are irregularities. Period. There's a process to deal with those irregularities and check the veracity. PERIOD. The inauguration dosne't happen for 2 months. The EC meets in December.  That's not happened yet. There's an entire month to go before that happens. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Al Gore contested based on one state and intuiting the intent of voters by way of pregnant chads for what, 37 days? 

Given that the left has contested that Trump wasn't president for the past 4 years...I'm not sure that this  "the best thing he can do...." crap is remotely consistent. Frankly the best thing the Left can do is shut the fuck up and wait for the court process to resolve as per legal and constitutional process. 

Also, I REALLY want to see the charges for Biden staff who are violating the same law that they felt was a big issue when the incoming Trump Administration started talking with foreign dignitaries. 

And that was over what, a few hundred votes? Entirely within range for a recount.

Ive yet to hear an explanation of how the industrial effort to commit fraud could possibly have occurred, particularly without a single shred of evidence to prove it, of THOUSANDS of votes. In fact, Biden is reckoned to have a superiority of 5 MILLION votes. Thats far, far more than Gore had to reckon with. Far more than the vote count Hillary Clinton had over Trump in 2016. And its not one state that was subject to this vast conspiracy, its what, 4, 5? Some of them Republican, which would mean that as Republicans were monitoring the count, would presumably mean they were part of this vast conspiracy to remove their own President. 

 

[Josh]

8 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Not provable yet. But they need to be checked. As to reversing margins, well, that remains to be seen. It's more accurate to say that it's probable that the margins won't be reversible based on intuition, not enough to matter. But again, we should check first before President Trump Concedes. Nothing is going to be harmed by going through the process. 

 

Then DON'T! You started to above. She made claims of being deprived and was making noises about Biden not conceding if the vote count went the other way.

 https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/25/hillary-clinton-tells-joe-biden-not-to-accept-the-election-results-if-he-loses/

Which motions were those? Remember when she said he was "an illegitimate president,” 

Or perhaps you remember this quote?
‘You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you.’– Hillary Clinton, speaking at an “Evening with the Clintons” event in Los Angeles Saturday.

 

The Electoral college hasn't met yet. So asserting that he lost the EC is false. 

From Wikipedia.

Meeting of electors

Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to fix the day on which the electors shall vote, which must be the same day throughout the United States. Since 1936, the date fixed by Congress for the meeting of the Electoral College "on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment".^[84][85]

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, disqualifies all elected and appointed federal officials from being electors. The Office of the Federal Register is charged with administering the Electoral College.^[86]

After the vote, each state sends to Congress a certified record of their electoral votes, called the Certificate of Vote. These certificates are opened during a joint session of Congress, held in the first week of January, and read aloud by the incumbent vice president, acting in his capacity as President of the Senate. If any person receives an absolute majority of electoral votes, that person is declared the winner.^[87] If there is a tie, or if no candidate for either or both offices receives an absolute majority, then choice falls to Congress in a procedure known as a contingent election.

 

Hillary may have bitched after the fact, and I've no doubt Trump will for the rest of his life. But when it mattered she conceded publicly and swiftly:
 

 

[rmgill]

2 minutes ago, Josh said:

Then presumably the courts will solve the problem if there is evidence. The GOP owns the courts, so one can hardly called them biased for the Dems.

I'm sorry, are you contesting the decisions of the courts before they even hear the evidence? Why are you being so anti-democratic? 

 

2 minutes ago, Josh said:

Do you really think there were hundreds of thousands of provably fraudulent votes across multiple states such they flip?

I think it's possible that there were thousands of fraudulent votes across certain states and that there may be something to check with software that might have reversed or otherwise incorrectly tallied vote counts. The states have not even certified their vote counts yet. So, again. Keep. Your. Shirt. ON.

2 minutes ago, Josh said:

IMO, Trump and the GOP are just ensuring an entire generation of new voters and existing centrists never trust them again, so I'm fine with this process playing out the way it is.

#Resist.
#NOTMYPRESIDENT

How arrogant and obtuse can you be? 

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 minute ago, rmgill said:

Oh jeeze. Please, stop telling us what we're going to accept or not going to accept. Ok? Remember all those threads where I was citing a Briton about how they thought about something as a point of discussion and you told me I dodn't know anything and that so and so was a bad person to cite because you didn't like them? 

Put that shoe on and lace it up tight. 

There are irregularities. Period. There's a process to deal with those irregularities and check the veracity. PERIOD. The inauguration dosne't happen for 2 months. The EC meets in December.  That's not happened yet. There's an entire month to go before that happens. 

Id give more credence or your entirely justifiable critique of modern Britain, if you based it on anyone other than Sargon of Fuckfest or whatever his name was.  It would be like criticizing Modern America based on the word of David Icke.

Irregularities, fine, investigate them. Trump is perfectly within his rights to investigate them. The Republican Party are wholly right to stick with him that far. Entirely on board thus far. But when recounts only give a few hundred votes, and you are something like 5 million down, there is something of an issue with credulity there.

 

[Josh]

1 minute ago, rmgill said:

I'm sorry, are you contesting the decisions of the courts before they even hear the evidence? Why are you being so anti-democratic? 

 

I think it's possible that there were thousands of fraudulent votes across certain states and that there may be something to check with software that might have reversed or otherwise incorrectly tallied vote counts. The states have not even certified their vote counts yet. So, again. Keep. Your. Shirt. ON.

#Resist.
#NOTMYPRESIDENT

How arrogant and obtuse can you be? 

I am saying the courts won't be biased for my side; I'm not contesting whatever conclusions they reach. By all means, let this play out in the courts: so far almost all of them have thrown Trump's claims out. I'm fine with the process playing out the way it is; Trump might as well sue that the world is flat.

I am sure there were mistakes made in the voting process as there always are. I seriously doubt there were tens of thousands of mistakes in the specific states Trump needs to win, and the margin of 2020 is not as close as the margin of 2016 when everyone just accepted the result. But again, I am happy to let this sham play out in the courts. I'm in no rush for Trump to lose, I enjoy the slow grinding process of him hating every moment of his loss.

I'm not being arrogant or obtuse, I'm simply pointing to the numbers and explaining which ones are higher than the other ones.

[rmgill]

2 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

And that was over what, a few hundred votes? Entirely within range for a recount.

But it was ALSO about trying to CHANGE the votes by intuiting a different result. And there was an attempt to suppress Military Ballots. That was more than a few thousand as I recall. AND was the issue of trying to count votes ONE way in one county and a different way in another county. 

That's a violation of the equal protection clause. 

2 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Ive yet to hear an explanation of how the industrial effort to commit fraud could possibly have occurred,

Then you're either glossing over posts, ignoring them or otherwise blind. 

Vote Tally Software, it flipped results in several counties apparently. That's been getting found. https://www.westernjournal.com/michigan-county-flips-trump-major-vote-tabulation-error-discovered/

In another case fixing this actually changed an election result from 100 votes against a candidate to 1000+ votes for. That's in one county and an order of magnitude flip. 

So a 1000 vote margin for biden, could, mathmatically, across an entire state if the software is fubar, flip it to 100,000 FOR Trump. 

That's an example taht's been cited and found and explains it. We have other examples cited in this thread too. PLEASE. READ. THEM. 
 

2 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

particularly without a single shred of evidence to prove it, of THOUSANDS of votes.

I don't know how you think courts go. 

Is it. Accusation against Conservatives = evidence and proof? 
Where as Accusation against liberals = no evidence and not an issue?

Cause that's what it seems like. 

In fact the way it works over here, if things are correct is roughly, 
Affidavit of fault/problem/issue.
Investigation
Court decisions involving same.
Hearing of evidence FROM the investigation
Determination by courts. 
Appeals to higher courts on specific of laws. 

Keep. Your. Shirt. On. 

2 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

In fact, Biden is reckoned to have a superiority of 5 MILLION votes. Thats far, far more than Gore had to reckon with. Far more than the vote count Hillary Clinton had over Trump in 2016. And its not one state that was subject to this vast conspiracy, its what, 4, 5? Some of them Republican, which would mean that as Republicans were monitoring the count, would presumably mean they were part of this vast conspiracy to remove their own President. 

 

Total mass of votes is irrelevant. Votes per state is what matters. Your point os obtuse and irrelevant. 

[rmgill]

5 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Id give more credence or your entirely justifiable critique of modern Britain, if you based it on anyone other than Sargon of Fuckfest or whatever his name was.  It would be like criticizing Modern America based on the word of David Icke.

I do across quitea  few examples. But you're not even doing that you're just asserting what Stu, Anorak of The Cotswalds thinks is supposed to be happening and what we all think and say and do. Sorry, Stu, Anorak of the Cotswalds, it doesn't work that way. 

5 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Irregularities, fine, investigate them. Trump is perfectly within his rights to investigate them.

Then stop saying the MASK IS OFF!!!!!!111111111!!!!!

5 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The Republican Party are wholly right to stick with him that far. Entirely on board thus far. But when recounts only give a few hundred votes, and you are something like 5 million down, there is something of an issue with credulity there.

5 Million down isn't at issue. Look at the state results again. Your Maths are wrong on what is at issue. 

[JWB]

 

[rmgill]

4 minutes ago, Josh said:

I am saying the courts won't be biased for my side; I'm not contesting whatever conclusions they reach.

If you're saying the courts are biased against your side, you're asserting that what ever conclisions they reach won't be fair. Where's you evidence? You were all about evidence of fact above. 

4 minutes ago, Josh said:

By all means, let this play out in the courts: so far almost all of them have thrown Trump's claims out. I'm fine with the process playing out the way it is; Trump might as well sue that the world is flat.

On what basis? Lets see some legal citations here Josh. If you're going to quibble over the decisions of courts before they do something but then cite "throwing out of cases" without any citation of law, their rulings or what not, you're just blowing a lot of smoke and hot air. 

 

4 minutes ago, Josh said:

I am sure there were mistakes made in the voting process as there always are.

My Dead neighbor voting was not a 'mistake'. It was an example of fraud. 

Also, I'd REALLY like you to stop saying that there's 'mistakes' all the time and then also saying that there's no evidence. 

It's almost like you feel like it's reasonable to have this sort of election bullshit and then in the next sentence say it doesn't exist at all. Stop gas lighting. It's not working. 

4 minutes ago, Josh said:

I seriously doubt there were tens of thousands of mistakes in the specific states Trump needs to win, and the margin of 2020 is not as close as the margin of 2016 when everyone just accepted the result.

Again, if one county election can flip from a 100 vote margin against a candidate to a 1000 vote margin FOR the same candidate, all due to software errors, I'll tell you, that as an IT guy, with a larger data set, the same software can flop a larger percentage from 1000 votes against to 100,000 votes for.. 

This is very basic computer theory. 

 

4 minutes ago, Josh said:

But again, I am happy to let this sham play out in the courts. I'm in no rush for Trump to lose, I enjoy the slow grinding process of him hating every moment of his loss.

Ok fine. IT's a sham before you even hear evidence that the courts are also hearing. You're on ignore. You have nothing useful to say becuse you just spout crap, then say it's not crap and that we should all eat it. But, in the next sentence it's really nice crap, and some of the best crap you've tasted.

Blow smoke up someone else's ass. 

[sunday]

Of those 5 million, 4 are in California only, where they are pretty much irrelevant.

[rmgill]

2 minutes ago, sunday said:

Of those 5 million, 4 are in California only, where they are pretty much irrelevant.

It's almost like he doesn't understand the first thing about how our elections work. 
 

For those that seem to not understand the basics. 

 

Edited November 11, 2020 by rmgill

[sunday]

With the move to have States declaring their delegates to the Electoral College according to the popular vote, then those millions of Californian excess votes, that could pretty well be more crooked than a dog's hind leg, will be very important.

Also, someone put a list of "electoral mistakes".

https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8O2wesk/happening-calling-every-pede-to-/

Edited November 11, 2020 by sunday
Added first paragraph.

[rmgill]

 

[JWB]

6 minutes ago, sunday said:

Also, someone put a list of "electoral mistakes".

https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8O2wesk/happening-calling-every-pede-to-/

"Switched votes are votes that were taken from Trump and given to Biden."

Is it possible  switched votes went the other way?

[rmgill]

Possible. But what ever the switch is, they need to be found in the electronic tally system (or manual process) and resolved. 

[sunday]

1 minute ago, JWB said:

"Switched votes are votes that were taken from Trump and given to Biden."

Is it possible  switched votes went the other way?

There is an instance of Trump votes going to Jorgensen, but no Biden's to Trump, that I recall.

[Tim the Tank Nut]

as I recall a German once said that a nation of 70 millions suffers but does not die.  Extrapolating the end result for all that doesn't give one a warm and fuzzy feeling

[Josh]

36 minutes ago, sunday said:

Of those 5 million, 4 are in California only, where they are pretty much irrelevant.

Five million is more than the population of twenty US states. We can also say the entire population of Indiana is irrelevant.

 

37 minutes ago, rmgill said:

If you're saying the courts are biased against your side, you're asserting that what ever conclisions they reach won't be fair. Where's you evidence? You were all about evidence of fact above. 

On what basis? Lets see some legal citations here Josh. If you're going to quibble over the decisions of courts before they do something but then cite "throwing out of cases" without any citation of law, their rulings or what not, you're just blowing a lot of smoke and hot air. 

 

My Dead neighbor voting was not a 'mistake'. It was an example of fraud. 

Also, I'd REALLY like you to stop saying that there's 'mistakes' all the time and then also saying that there's no evidence. 

It's almost like you feel like it's reasonable to have this sort of election bullshit and then in the next sentence say it doesn't exist at all. Stop gas lighting. It's not working. 

Again, if one county election can flip from a 100 vote margin against a candidate to a 1000 vote margin FOR the same candidate, all due to software errors, I'll tell you, that as an IT guy, with a larger data set, the same software can flop a larger percentage from 1000 votes against to 100,000 votes for.. 

This is very basic computer theory. 

 

Ok fine. IT's a sham before you even hear evidence that the courts are also hearing. You're on ignore. You have nothing useful to say becuse you just spout crap, then say it's not crap and that we should all eat it. But, in the next sentence it's really nice crap, and some of the best crap you've tasted.

Blow smoke up someone else's ass. 

The vote count is the vote count until someone proves otherwise. Cite your sources, otherwise the counts stand.

I’m not questioning the findings of the courts. Again, I’m fine with Trump contesting the numbers and simply looking stupid afterwards, which is what will happen. Facts are facts, and the fact is he lost by a larger margin than Hillary. If the GOP wants to try and fight vote by vote to turn back tens of thousands of ballots across several states, they are welcome to. I’ll enjoy the show.

Edited November 11, 2020 by Josh

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

But it was ALSO about trying to CHANGE the votes by intuiting a different result. And there was an attempt to suppress Military Ballots. That was more than a few thousand as I recall. AND was the issue of trying to count votes ONE way in one county and a different way in another county. 

That's a violation of the equal protection clause. 

Then you're either glossing over posts, ignoring them or otherwise blind. 

Vote Tally Software, it flipped results in several counties apparently. That's been getting found. https://www.westernjournal.com/michigan-county-flips-trump-major-vote-tabulation-error-discovered/

In another case fixing this actually changed an election result from 100 votes against a candidate to 1000+ votes for. That's in one county and an order of magnitude flip. 

So a 1000 vote margin for biden, could, mathmatically, across an entire state if the software is fubar, flip it to 100,000 FOR Trump. 

That's an example taht's been cited and found and explains it. We have other examples cited in this thread too. PLEASE. READ. THEM. 
 

I don't know how you think courts go. 

Is it. Accusation against Conservatives = evidence and proof? 
Where as Accusation against liberals = no evidence and not an issue?

Cause that's what it seems like. 

In fact the way it works over here, if things are correct is roughly, 
Affidavit of fault/problem/issue.
Investigation
Court decisions involving same.
Hearing of evidence FROM the investigation
Determination by courts. 
Appeals to higher courts on specific of laws. 

Keep. Your. Shirt. On. 

Total mass of votes is irrelevant. Votes per state is what matters. Your point os obtuse and irrelevant. 

Fine, I'm obtuse and irrelevant. I clearly have difficulty reconciling your comments on defending states rights at all costs, then denying they could possibly be right about the vote count when your candidate loses. This takes mental backdrops I cannot keep up with.

As for Michigan, a 2 minute search found this.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/michigan-election-agency-failure-updating-software-caused-antrim-county-results-glitch/ar-BB1aM2NV

And a U-M professor of computer science and engineering who specializes in voting systems and securities says it appears the snafu arose from an "unusual sequence of events very unlikely to affect any other jurisdictions."

"The erroneous reporting of unofficial results from Antrim county was a result of accidental error on the part of the Antrim County clerk," the state agency that oversees elections said in a news release.

There was no problem with the voting machines or vote totals, which were preserved on tapes printed from the tabulators, the state said. The problem occurred when the totals by precinct were combined into candidate county-wide totals for transfer to the state, using election management system software, the state agency said.

 

 

Edited November 11, 2020 by Stuart Galbraith

[JasonJ]

16 minutes ago, Josh said:

Five million is more than the population of twenty US states. We can also say the entire population of Indiana is irrelevant.

...

If the election scheme was by population and not by state delegates, then the campaign and all the gerrymandering and so on would reposition to play a competition for straight population contest. But its not. So California's 4 million share means just that California is characterized as such.

[Jeff]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

Then presumably the courts will solve the problem if there is evidence. The GOP owns the courts, so one can hardly called them biased for the Dems. Do you really think there were hundreds of thousands of provably fraudulent votes across multiple states such they flip? IMO, Trump and the GOP are just ensuring an entire generation of new voters and existing centrists never trust them again, so I'm fine with this process playing out the way it is. It won't change the facts and it will make Trump and his followers looks weak and stupid when it fails.

100+ thousand votes show up in the wee hours with not a single one for Trump? Thousands of ballots with only Biden filled out?

Hundreds of thousands of votes counted with no Republican poll watchers present or kept dozens of feet away directly contravenes the law which states that any interested party can meaningfully observe the count. ALL of those votes need to be rejected as corrupt because there's no way to turn back time and see what happened when they were received, opened and counted. Recounting them now is recounting spoiled ballots and the blame goes totally on the Dem election officials. Now if the election is on the up and up then there should be the proper ratio of Biden and Trump ballots disqualified. Want to bet they're mostly or all for Biden?

This is not your usual recount that doesn't move many votes, this is multiple wholesale breaking of election laws.

By the Constitution, ONLY the state legislatures can make and change the rules for elections and yet we have multiple states where Governors, AGs and the courts changed the laws in drastic ways just before the election and even during the election. This is patently unconstitutional.

Election machines show a "glitch" and these machines are used by about 30 states. The company happens to be owned by the spouses of high up Dems and Soros. The company contracted with Act Blue for some services, the Act Blue of the Dem party.

So your answer is yes, this may cause very large swings in results unlike the past.

We warned this was the likely result to the last minute changes in the election system.

[Jeff]

Suddenly the Dems find that election law suits are good again in 3, 2, 1.

 

[Jeff]

Is a time machine voter fraud? 

Quote

 

Tens of Thousands of Pennsylvania Ballots Returned Earlier Than Sent Date: Researcher

More than 20,000 absentee ballots in Pennsylvania have impossible return dates and another more than 80,000 have return dates that raise questions, according to a researcher’s analysis of the state’s voter database.

Over 51,000 ballots were marked as returned just a day after they were sent out—an extraordinary speed, given U.S. Postal Service (USPS) delivery times, while nearly 35,000 were returned on the same day they were mailed out. Another more than 23,000 have a return date earlier than the sent date. More than 9,000 have no sent date.

 

 

[Jeff]

100 briefcases? 

Quote

 

Puerto Rico unearths uncounted ballots 1 week after election

Puerto Rico’s elections commission says it has discovered more than 100 briefcases containing uncounted ballots a week after the U.S. territory held its general election, drawing criticism and scorn from voters who now question the validity of the outcomes of certain races.