Jump to content

Because Democrat Voter Fraud


Murph

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

I've repreatedly noted how the Georgia Voting system could be compromised via absentee ballot system. But no, no evidence. Okay. 

 

Then there was that broken main pipe in the counting offices, broken pipe that had no external effects you could see from the next building...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 621
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

How did they audit all ballots on file forensically back to the authorized voter that cast it?  I didn't think that was possible.

Let's look here in AZ.  They spent thousands of hours looking into every 'lead' they came across.  When those all came up negative why would there have been a need to do what you're stating? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

I've repreatedly noted how the Georgia Voting system could be compromised via absentee ballot system. But no, no evidence. Okay. 

 

Note the bolded, underlined bit.  Yeah... that is literally not the definition of evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

Note the bolded, underlined bit.  Yeah... that is literally not the definition of evidence.

No, it's evidence of a security risk in thes system. It directly refutes the "secure" contention that was made for decades about the voting system in Georgia wrt both IDs and in person voting AND wrt to absentee ballots cast in absentia. 

To FIND evidence, one would have to either have direct confessions or conduct investigations that had a high likelihood of turning up such issues. If one never searches for it int he right place, one will never find it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, glenn239 said:

How did they audit all ballots on file forensically back to the authorized voter that cast it?  I didn't think that was possible.

How did fraud occur in the first place? No evidence was ever provided to any court. The Republican allegations of fraud basically equate to “when did you stop beating your wife” allegation - the people who run elections have to prove that nothing happened instead of the other way around.


Trump has been throwing around fraud accusations since literally before the election and explicitly stated any result that wasn’t him winning was fraud. Then the GOP has the gaul to talk about banana republics while supporting their president for life.

Edited by Josh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, rmgill said:

I've repreatedly noted how the Georgia Voting system could be compromised via absentee ballot system. But no, no evidence. Okay. 

 

I’ve repeatedly noted how easy it would be to kill my wife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sunday said:

Then there was that broken main pipe in the counting offices, broken pipe that had no external effects you could see from the next building...

…and the other 2-3 states that would have also had to go to Trump on top of Georgia to get the other 24 votes.

Edited by Josh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Let's look here in AZ.  They spent thousands of hours looking into every 'lead' they came across.  When those all came up negative why would there have been a need to do what you're stating? 

How about you answer the question I asked?   

How did they audit all ballots on file forensically back to the authorized voter that cast it

In order to prove that there was no fraud in the 2020 election via ballot stuffing, it is necessary for every vote on file to trace it back to the person that cast it.  That cannot be done, correct?  Once the ballots are submitted and counted, there is no way to take those ballots and determine who cast which, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Note the bolded, underlined bit.  Yeah... that is literally not the definition of evidence.

In order for Georgia to convict Trump, Georgia has to prove that fraud was not possible on the necessary scale in Georgia in 2020, and therefore, that Trump could not have believed that fraud occurred.  Yet, it seems that security requirements were lax enough in many states that this might not be possible to do.   How does Georgia prove that Trump couldn't have believed there was fraud if Georgia can't prove its election was tight enough to have prevented ballot stuffiing, and if ballot stuffing occurred, that it would be impossible to detect afterwards?  (Your statement that Arizona investigated "leads" afterwards was noted, but this is not a credible procedure for detecting ballot stuffing as on this planet criminals generally do not answer questions honestly.)

You agree that Trump's defense on his phone call is obviously that at that moment he believed the Georgia election was so poorly executed that someone somewhere might have set aside or misplaced ballots, so go look for them?  Nothing criminal, just the recognition that many people handling ballots would do anything to prevent the hated Trump getting elected?

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2023 at 7:38 AM, glenn239 said:

How about you answer the question I asked?   

How did they audit all ballots on file forensically back to the authorized voter that cast it

In order to prove that there was no fraud in the 2020 election via ballot stuffing, it is necessary for every vote on file to trace it back to the person that cast it.  That cannot be done, correct?  Once the ballots are submitted and counted, there is no way to take those ballots and determine who cast which, correct?

Your question is irrelevant.  That may be your bar... but your bar is irrelevant.  First, there are already measures in place to control who votes and how.  Some of you may object to those measures but no evidence has been brought forward that those measures were circumvented.  Second, the burden of proof is on those making the accusations.  It's sad that I still have to bring up the fact that there is nothing to support the notion of a stolen election... nothing.  It's been investigated, taken to court, the whole shebang.  Nothing has been found.  That you still continue to question it... is... well... yeah...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2023 at 11:17 AM, rmgill said:

No, it's evidence of a security risk in thes system. It directly refutes the "secure" contention that was made for decades about the voting system in Georgia wrt both IDs and in person voting AND wrt to absentee ballots cast in absentia. 

To FIND evidence, one would have to either have direct confessions or conduct investigations that had a high likelihood of turning up such issues. If one never searches for it int he right place, one will never find it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 

Investigations have been launched... and nothing was found.  That doesn't mean you look harder... it means the accusations are garbage.

You and glenn239 can lean on that logical fallacy in bold all you want... doesn't change the fact it's still a logical fallacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

 

You and glenn239 can lean on that logical fallacy in bold all you want... doesn't change the fact it's still a logical fallacy.

 

I don't think Trump should have been on the phone asking for votes in Georgia.   That being said, his defense is obviously that he thought Fulton County and other democratic strongholds might have illegally failed to count Trump votes.  Unless Georgia can prove Trump was unreasonable to think that, or unless they have evidence of his pressuring offiicials to ballot stuff, I don't see the case and don't understand why it was brought.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, glenn239 said:

 

I don't think Trump should have been on the phone asking for votes in Georgia.   That being said, his defense is obviously that he thought Fulton County and other democratic strongholds might have illegally failed to count Trump votes.  Unless Georgia can prove Trump was unreasonable to think that, or unless they have evidence of his pressuring offiicials to ballot stuff, I don't see the case and don't understand why it was brought.

 

One of the lawyers in that vid I linked highlighted how Trump made that call after multiple recounts/audits had been done and with zero evidence presented in court by Trump's legal teams (and none found by state investigators) to highlight any fraud.  The other vid I linked with former AG Barr highlights how everyone around Trump was telling him he lost... so instead he started looking for whoever would tell him what he wanted to hear.  The argument that one lawyer made was it would be pretty clear to any reasonable person there was no reason for Trump to make that call and to continue with the notion of a stolen election.  But reasonable is never a word I've heard used to describe Trump.

As already mentioned you can compare this with Gore's challenge in '20.  When the USSC ruled against him Gore conceded the very next day.  Everyone from state courts to the USSC ruled against Trump, zero evidence of fraud was ever found or presented, and yet he persisted (with illegal efforts per Fed and GA prosecutors)... and that's why these charges are being brought.

Edited by Skywalkre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, glenn239 said:

 

I don't think Trump should have been on the phone asking for votes in Georgia.   That being said, his defense is obviously that he thought Fulton County and other democratic strongholds might have illegally failed to count Trump votes.  Unless Georgia can prove Trump was unreasonable to think that, or unless they have evidence of his pressuring offiicials to ballot stuff, I don't see the case and don't understand why it was brought.

 

That is the case that they intend to make. And seems quite likely they will rely on testimony from some of the people involved to make that case. The prosecution might not be able to make that case, but that is for a jury to decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2023 at 10:38 AM, glenn239 said:

How about you answer the question I asked?   

How did they audit all ballots on file forensically back to the authorized voter that cast it

In order to prove that there was no fraud in the 2020 election via ballot stuffing, it is necessary for every vote on file to trace it back to the person that cast it.  That cannot be done, correct?  Once the ballots are submitted and counted, there is no way to take those ballots and determine who cast which, correct?

What he is saying is in order to prove there was fraud in the first place, some proof of fraud must be provided. You're basically asking for an investigation into something randomly on the off chance it happened. I doubt you would expect someone to be randomly chosen and investigated for murder and for the burden of proof to be on the accused that they didn't kill anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sunday said:

For the general public - that is not fallacious. On the other hand, a classical example of reverse implication fallacy is the proposition "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".

In terms of a criminal court, evidence is still required. I find it amusing that some of the same people that call all of the Trump investigations a warlock pursuit also are inclined to make up crime and force the other side to present evidence it didn't occur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Murph said:

F4nxbUCXkAA_nlt?format=jpg&name=small

So the case I'm generally hearing being made is that The Left (TM) now controls the colleges, media, corporations, FBI, CIA, IRS, DoJ, and polling stations in nominally Republican controlled states. At what point do we involve the jewish space lasers? IMO, the modern day MAGA party sounds a lot like the Palestinians: nothing is their fault and their opponents somehow control everything and they are helpless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would Gore be indicted?  Let me quote myself from above:

Quote

As already mentioned you can compare this with Gore's challenge in '20.  When the USSC ruled against him Gore conceded the very next day.  Everyone from state courts to the USSC ruled against Trump, zero evidence of fraud was ever found or presented, and yet he persisted (with illegal efforts per Fed and GA prosecutors)... and that's why these charges are being brought.

So... I'm all ears.  Why would he be indicted?

Getting back to Trump... Murph, on several occasions over the years, you've stated grand juries are full of very smart people.  Multiple grand juries have now indicted Trump.  Shouldn't this be enough for you to take a serious look at the charges?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...