2020 Election Fraud Roundup

Post Reply New Topic

A certain degree of error is normal, in a vote of this size. Unfortunate and undesirable, but fairly inevitable, and nearly always down to human error. If it is detected and corrected, that proves the system works.

You're also jumbling up allegations with facts again, I notice. "Apparently" means "not proven yet" which in turn means "could actually involve all sorts of other factors that didn't suit our angle so well". 20% of 55 votes is 11 votes. Please let us know when a genuine explanation appears, rather than conjecture.

No that part wasn't normal at all and you know it. That doesn't imply anything in of itself, but it was certainly unprecedented.

So you're either A: guilt tripping us for voting Trump out or B: spreading lies about a highly standardized practice to guilt trip us about voting Trump out.

That's got to be the most bizarre interpretation of simply saying the days long vote counting to covid was unprecedented I've ever seen. But then again, the "alt-right cultist" conclusion was really weird too.

Is it really that fool proof though? I mean are you saying that in the history of the 21 and 20th century for example there has never been fraud in an election, ever?

No, I'm saying that we haven't to date recorded significant enough voter fraud to change anything.

No you came to a bizarre conclusion.

While Joe Kennedy had had connections to the Chicago mob which had allegedly delivered Illinois to JFK, Nixon in fact had had close connections to the New Orleans mob and Jimmy Hoffa all through his political career.

You are going from a minor tabulation error jumping to an orchestrated fraud committed/sanctioned by the democrat party...why? because Trump said it was true.

That's like your neighbour who wears a tin foil hat claiming that holes appearing in his garden one morning were made by goblins live in his backyard and starting with the premise that it must be true because you take the position to believe everything your crazy neighbor says.

I would love to know where the "going from a minor tabulation error jumping to an orchestrated fraud committed/sanctioned by the democrat party" was pulled from.

A simple reading would show that this was nothing more than a responce to a post stating that the "counting of votes" was normal, and the examples provided didn't seem to reflect what would be considered a "normal" system of vote counting.

It would be cool if you actually read stuff instead of just skimming and then winging it.

It would be cool if you didn't adhere to lies as if they're facts.

Did you see the hearings lately. I mean not read the post about them, but actually seen them. If not, I understand since it's not really talked about in the general or mainstream media for whatever reason.

This was a several day thing. I think there was a few others in a few other places. But it's more of the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZXkAv7yKgw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPrV_QPTtrk


So something to note real fast. None of the people are under oath. HOWEVER, they have all the info in a sworn affidavit which holds the same power as if they were under oath. So even with them not being required, they still put their neck on the line with real possible jail time if they are proven to lied.

Well I don't know how things are in the states, but in Canada, there have been witnesses who lied in court and it turned out later that the lies were found out, but they never sought jail time for them. Is it similar in the U.S. where prosecutors don't bother often, and people who lie, know it?

People everywhere lie, however rarely often enough to change an election.

This completely ignores the content of the affidavit. Don't move too fast, you'll miss important things. You can say whatever you want if you phrase it as "I thought" or "I suspected" or "I believed" - because in those cases they would have to prove you did not actually believe, and that's nearly impossible. However, "I think" does not hold up in court as evidence. In court, they would have to say explicitly what they saw that was fraudulent, rather than simply noting "suspicious" things. In simple terms, "I tought I taw a puddy tat" and "I DID taw a puddy tat" are two completely legally different statements, both in terms of how they're treated as statements, and how they're treated as evidence.

If you say "I thought I saw a cat", and they play back video, and there's no cat, you don't get in trouble, becuase you THOUGHT you saw a cat. You admitted possibility of error up front by doing so. At the same time, THINKING you saw a cat is a really unsure statement, and would not be taken as evidence, but merely speculation in the absence of evidence. But if you say "There was definitely a cat there", and they play back the video, and there was no cat, now you're not mistaken, now you're lying as far as they're concerned.

This is why the affidavits keep getting ignored. They swear under oath that they SUSPECT fraud, but won't swear that they WITNESSED fraud. And WITNESSING fraud is evidence - SUSPECTING fraud is NOT evidence. That aside, it was a really nicely set up false equivalency.

I watch the hearings, I read the full texts, I read the affidavits, I read the courts' rulings. I have formal legal training, in both state and federal law, as well as civil / common law and contract law. I do all my own legal filings, and have represented myself in court, as both a plaintiff and a defendant, in both civil and criminal court. I know how this legal stuff works. I'm directly involved in it.

If you think voting is like it is in grade school, then sure, voter fraud seems possible. But if you actually knew how the system worked, you'd know how absurd most of these claims and lawsuits are. In the end it sounds like a kid thinking they're clever because they came up with the idea of flying to the sun at night.