Election Fraud and path forward

[SomeDude]

A lot of people on here believe Trump won the election, or at least there was enough fraud to put the result in doubt.

Unfortunately we can't discuss it without getting bombarded by the fraud deniers (i kid guys).

Is there any chance the people who think the election was above board can leave this one thread alone so the rest of us can discuss the developing situation without it turning into a discussion of Trump the man or repeated requests for evidence?

Just asking a favor here so we can explore the fraud that many of us see as obvious

[pmward]

So basically, you want to throw all the real objective evidence out and discuss fantasy? If your arguments had actual weight behind them, you would be able to bring real credible evidence to the table and win the argument. So you're basically saying, "I know you can prove me wrong, but I want you to leave me alone so I can make my false arguments without you proving me wrong". Sorry, but that's not how reality works. If you want an echo chamber go to Parler. If something was "obvious" it would have real objective evidence you could bring to the table the quality of which would speak for itself. If it was "obvious" I wouldn't be able to easily refute it. If there is no evidence, it is "obviously" not "obvious"; not to mention wrong.

[flyingpylon]

Evidence will not matter. In the end it will be like baseball... a pitch is just a pitch until it's called a ball or a strike by the umpire. It's not reviewable, and everyone just has to move on.

If Biden is declared the winner, it only means that Biden is declared the winner. Not that fraud did not take place. They are two separate things.

Clearly if fraud was considered a problem by those in power it would have been fixed a long time ago.

[pmward]

Not to mention the fact that the "conservatives" on this board relentlessly hammer any "moderate" or "liberal" opinion or evidence that is shared here. Why should we extend to you leeway that you would never extend to us? For any non-libertarian posting here is like venturing into a pack of rabid wolves. We are holding you to the same bullshit filter you hold us to, and that is a good thing, imo.

[pmward]

Evidence will not matter. In the end it will be like baseball... a pitch is just a pitch until it's called a ball or a strike by the umpire. It's not reviewable, and everyone just has to move on.

If Biden is declared the winner, it only means that Biden is declared the winner. Not that fraud did not take place. They are two separate things.

Clearly if fraud was considered a problem by those in power it would have been fixed a long time ago.

No evidence is everything. I agree that if Biden is declared the winner it does not mean in itself that fraud didn't happen. But there are investigations and legal proceedings ongoing. And if these investigations and legal proceedings produce no evidence... there was no fraud. Likewise, if they bring some real ground breaking evidence to the table on Jan 21, that would mean there was fraud. It's the evidence itself that is the ONLY thing that matters. If there was real large scale fraud, there would be evidence, especially since the vote was 90%+ on paper ballots and that evidence and documentation is permanent.

[flyingpylon]

Evidence will not matter. In the end it will be like baseball... a pitch is just a pitch until it's called a ball or a strike by the umpire. It's not reviewable, and everyone just has to move on.

If Biden is declared the winner, it only means that Biden is declared the winner. Not that fraud did not take place. They are two separate things.

Clearly if fraud was considered a problem by those in power it would have been fixed a long time ago.

No evidence is everything. I agree that if Biden is declared the winner it does not mean in itself that fraud didn't happen. But there are investigations and legal proceedings ongoing. And if these investigations and legal proceedings produce no evidence... there was no fraud. Likewise, if they bring some real ground breaking evidence to the table on Jan 21, that would mean there was fraud. It's the evidence itself that is the ONLY thing that matters. If there was real large scale fraud, there would be evidence, especially since the vote was 90%+ on paper ballots and that evidence and documentation is permanent.

The existence of evidence and the evidence being discovered, produced, and considered are not the same things.

[Cortopassi]

I am happy to watch this topic and not post and I'd be happy to hear real arguments that can be made in front of a court.

[Cortopassi]

The existence of evidence and the evidence being discovered, produced, and considered are not the same things.

But, when I read something like this (and correct me if I am wrong), the only evidence admissible to you is evidence that proves Trump won. Am I right? So your mind is closed to the possibility that Biden could have at all possibly won?

I read your comment as to the grand conspiracy / left will be able to suppress the real evidence long past Biden being sworn in?

So that's not really a discussion starter is it?

[pmward]

Evidence will not matter. In the end it will be like baseball... a pitch is just a pitch until it's called a ball or a strike by the umpire. It's not reviewable, and everyone just has to move on.

If Biden is declared the winner, it only means that Biden is declared the winner. Not that fraud did not take place. They are two separate things.

Clearly if fraud was considered a problem by those in power it would have been fixed a long time ago.

No evidence is everything. I agree that if Biden is declared the winner it does not mean in itself that fraud didn't happen. But there are investigations and legal proceedings ongoing. And if these investigations and legal proceedings produce no evidence... there was no fraud. Likewise, if they bring some real ground breaking evidence to the table on Jan 21, that would mean there was fraud. It's the evidence itself that is the ONLY thing that matters. If there was real large scale fraud, there would be evidence, especially since the vote was 90%+ on paper ballots and that evidence and documentation is permanent.

The existence of evidence and the evidence being discovered, produced, and considered are not the same things.

Right.. but you sitting at home on your computer are not discovering, producing, or considering evidence. And neither is anyone else here. So whatever anyone here has to say that is not already documented in the legal process holds 0 weight.

[SomeDude]

So basically, you want to throw all the real objective evidence out and discuss fantasy?

Certainly not. I'm not interested in discussing liberal democrat theories about the proper use of government power.

[pmward]

So basically, you want to throw all the real objective evidence out and discuss fantasy?

Certainly not. I'm not interested in discussing liberal democrat theories about the proper use of government power.

News to you, I'm neither a democrat nor a liberal. I'm a moderate independent. There are things I like and dislike on both sides.

[Tortoise]

I am happy to watch this topic and not post and I'd be happy to hear real arguments that can be made in front of a court.

Getting a court to actually hear one of the cases so that discovery can be conducted (to produce what the lefties here call "credible evidence") seems to be the hard part. Most of the lower court judges seem to be scared of stepping into the political minefield, so they keep passing the buck up to the higher courts -- ultimately to SCOTUS.

In the meantime, the lefties on this forum keep pointing to the various courts' refusals to hear cases as an indication that there's no "credible evidence." Even though "credible evidence" by their definition presumably must come from discovery if a court agrees to hear the case. As sophie said in a different thread regarding what constitutes "credible sources" online, it's a catch-22. Heads I win, tails you lose.

Do the forum lefties think that the evidence presented at the recent PA and AZ legislative hearings isn't credible? When I see claims that credible evidence is still nowhere in sight (a very strong claim), I must assume that the people making that claim have watched those legislative hearings and judged all of the presented evidence to be meritless for some very good reasons.

[pmward]

I am happy to watch this topic and not post and I'd be happy to hear real arguments that can be made in front of a court.

Getting a court to actually hear one of the cases so that discovery can be conducted (to produce what the lefties here call "credible evidence") seems to be the hard part. Most of the lower court judges seem to be scared of stepping into the political minefield, so they keep passing the buck up to the higher courts -- ultimately to SCOTUS.

In the meantime, the lefties on this forum keep pointing to the various courts' refusals to hear cases as an indication that there's no "credible evidence." Even though "credible evidence" by their definition presumably must come from discovery if a court agrees to hear the case. As sophie said in a different thread regarding what constitutes "credible sources" online, it's a catch-22. Heads I win, tails you lose.

Do the forum lefties think that the evidence presented at the recent PA and AZ legislative hearings isn't credible? When I see claims that credible evidence is still nowhere in sight (a very strong claim), I must assume that the people making that claim have watched those legislative hearings and judged all of the presented evidence to be meritless for some very good reasons.

What is this "evidence presented at the recent PA and AZ legislative hearings" you refer to? We've already dissected a few court materials out of PA. Nothing from AZ yet. You're free to bring those here for discussion if you feel there is anything we've missed that gives your side weight. But so far tech is the only person on Trump's side that has brought court cases and documents here for us to discuss. By all means, if there is something out there bring it forth! I really would love to see any real credible evidence that is out there. So far I have not seen anything compelling that can't be refuted (for example, the case in GA about the machines is refuted by the fact that they had a full hand recount that proved the machines were accurate). I don't want to hear your opinion, I want to see your credible evidence. Show me what you got!

[flyingpylon]

The existence of evidence and the evidence being discovered, produced, and considered are not the same things.

But, when I read something like this (and correct me if I am wrong), the only evidence admissible to you is evidence that proves Trump won. Am I right? So your mind is closed to the possibility that Biden could have at all possibly won?

I read your comment as to the grand conspiracy / left will be able to suppress the real evidence long past Biden being sworn in?

So that's not really a discussion starter is it?

No, you're not right. I think it's possible for both Democrats and Republicans to have reasons to allow fraud in our elections and 2020 is no exception. As I said earlier, it's clear that there are not enough people in power that want to clean it up. It wouldn't be that hard.

[sophie]

I think it's high time that election fraud came up as a serious topic. The mail-in ballot situation (as well as Trump's approach to this) simply fueled an already simmering fire.

Count me in as someone who initially thought it was a fair election, but after reading report after report of evidence of fraud on a small to mid size scale, plus the giant disparity between the results at the presidential level and those down-ballot, I now seriously question the accuracy of the reported vote totals. There is also the simple fact that mail-in ballots was chosen as the pandemic voting tool of choice, for reasons that are very unclear. Why not simply allow for polling places to be open for longer, e.g. 1-2 weeks? Or do the form socially distanced lines outside thing? It makes me think that mail-in ballots were chosen specifically because it's super easy to commit fraud with them.

However - I would guess that most of the fraud occurred on an individual or small group level, and was not systemic at, say, the level of national Democratic leadership. Like, someone using a friend's, or even a group-provided address to send in mailed ballots in several states, or mail in a ballot in the home state and travel to an adjacent state to vote in person after claiming to have just moved there. Also, mail-in ballots make it almost trivial for a non-citizen to vote: all you need is an address.

That would make it very difficult to correct the errors in the process post-hoc, so I still predict that Biden is the one who will be sworn in Jan 20. But hopefully, the attention brought to the issue will result in tightening up election procedures in future.

[pmward]

The existence of evidence and the evidence being discovered, produced, and considered are not the same things.

But, when I read something like this (and correct me if I am wrong), the only evidence admissible to you is evidence that proves Trump won. Am I right? So your mind is closed to the possibility that Biden could have at all possibly won?

I read your comment as to the grand conspiracy / left will be able to suppress the real evidence long past Biden being sworn in?

So that's not really a discussion starter is it?

No, you're not right. I think it's possible for both Democrats and Republicans to have reasons to allow fraud in our elections and 2020 is no exception. As I said earlier, it's clear that there are not enough people in power that want to clean it up. It wouldn't be that hard.

Your assumption is that there is something that needs to be "cleaned up". You cannot assume this stuff without evidence. We already have good traceability and immutability in the fact that 90%+ of the vote was on paper ballots. That paper trail exists and is not going anywhere anytime soon. We've discussed things like blockchain in the past, which would improve the traceability and immutability of the dataset. So if your argument is that improved traceability and immutability is something we should push for in the future I would be in total 100% agreement. But if you say there is something that needs to be "cleaned up" I have to say show me the evidence? Internet articles are not a credible source of evidence. So you can either bring me credible sources, or you're going to be assumed to be wrong.

FWIW, I want to know the truth. If Trump actually won the election and there was fraud I would want Trump to be the president. But without proof there is no legal leg to stand on.

[Cortopassi]

I am happy to watch this topic and not post and I'd be happy to hear real arguments that can be made in front of a court.

Getting a court to actually hear one of the cases so that discovery can be conducted (to produce what the lefties here call "credible evidence") seems to be the hard part. Most of the lower court judges seem to be scared of stepping into the political minefield, so they keep passing the buck up to the higher courts -- ultimately to SCOTUS.

In the meantime, the lefties on this forum keep pointing to the various courts' refusals to hear cases as an indication that there's no "credible evidence." Even though "credible evidence" by their definition presumably must come from discovery if a court agrees to hear the case. As sophie said in a different thread regarding what constitutes "credible sources" online, it's a catch-22. Heads I win, tails you lose.

Do the forum lefties think that the evidence presented at the recent PA and AZ legislative hearings isn't credible? When I see claims that credible evidence is still nowhere in sight (a very strong claim), I must assume that the people making that claim have watched those legislative hearings and judged all of the presented evidence to be meritless for some very good reasons.

I will second pmward's identification that I am a moderate independent as well. But on this forum, it is coming off as a radical leftist!

I will not pretend that I have the time, will, urge or energy to read and follow all these proceedings. I have to trust the system as it winds through.

All I want to know from people (esp. tech and sophie) is that if this does get to the supreme court, or if they refuse to hear it, regardless, if in the end, it is determined Biden won, can you accept it and move forward?

I am going to make a very small leap and put word's into tech's mouth and say he will not (probably because he is not seeing my post anyway).

So I then ask, where does that get you personally? Angry, bitter at the world and your fellow Americans, bitter at all these republicans/RINOs who should have stood by Trump, etc?

I'm looking for some calm and happiness in my life, and a good life for my kids, not much more. If Trump ends up pulling it off, ok, whatever, I will live with it and move on. In the end either man isn't going to make a lot of difference to any of us personally.

Biden is certainly not the anti-Christ. We talk here about how a 70+ YO man gets set in his ways, and how could we have expected Trump to change, well I'd ask the same about Biden, who outwardly seems a genuine, empathetic guy, with some quirks and skeletons sure, but on the one hand you are asking me to accept Trump as he is but also asking me to believe Biden has been living a charade for 47 years?

Do I have to cue up the videos of him helping stutterers through his own experiences, for example?

[pmward]

the attention brought to the issue will result in tightening up election procedures in future.

I'm also going to say that I agree with this as well. Improved security, traceability, and immutability would be amazing in the 2024 election, if for nothing else than so we don't have to go through this situation all over again. Without trust in the voting process democracy cannot exist. We do need to rethink our process, if for no other reason than to regain the trust of all those that have lost trust in the process.

[SomeDude]

I will start another thread on the evidence of fraud since it only took minutes to turn this into a trump v. Biden and will people accept court rullings or what constitutes evidence discussion.

Attempt failed!

[Cortopassi]

This just out:

Attorney General William P. Barr said Tuesday that the Justice Department has not uncovered voting fraud at a scale that could have affected the results of the presidential election, reaffirming Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s win despite President Trump’s groundless claims that he was defrauded.

And this:

“After the first of the year, there is likely to be a discussion about some additional package of some size next year, depending upon what the new administration wants to pursue,” Mr. McConnell said at a news conference.

[Tortoise]

What is this "evidence presented at the recent PA and AZ legislative hearings" you refer to?

I haven't watched the AZ legislative hearing; presumably it's a few hours long, so I'm not sure I currently have the time to devote to that. My understanding is that at that hearing, Matt Braynard presented the evidence that he recently provided to the FBI when they reached out to him to request it. I have seen a short clip from the end of the hearing in which some of the legislators sound convinced that the presented evidence casts strong doubt on the AZ election's integrity and that appropriate action needs to be taken.

My point was simply that the claim "there is still no credible evidence" is a very strong one that requires the person making it to have seen all evidence presented and to have judged all of it to be meritless.

I'm not the one making such a strong claim. But you seem to be. Or maybe I just misunderstood you, and what you're actually claiming is that no credible evidence has been presented on this forum yet. If the latter is what you're actually claiming, then that's more defensible.

If I come across a "credible" online source (whatever that even means in our brave new polarized world) that provides a short executive summary of Braynard's key arguments presented in the AZ legislative hearing, I'll be sure to post it somewhere on the forum.

[flyingpylon]

The existence of evidence and the evidence being discovered, produced, and considered are not the same things.

But, when I read something like this (and correct me if I am wrong), the only evidence admissible to you is evidence that proves Trump won. Am I right? So your mind is closed to the possibility that Biden could have at all possibly won?

I read your comment as to the grand conspiracy / left will be able to suppress the real evidence long past Biden being sworn in?

So that's not really a discussion starter is it?

No, you're not right. I think it's possible for both Democrats and Republicans to have reasons to allow fraud in our elections and 2020 is no exception. As I said earlier, it's clear that there are not enough people in power that want to clean it up. It wouldn't be that hard.

Your assumption is that there is something that needs to be "cleaned up". You cannot assume this stuff without evidence. We already have good traceability and immutability in the fact that 90%+ of the vote was on paper ballots. That paper trail exists and is not going anywhere anytime soon. We've discussed things like blockchain in the past, which would improve the traceability and immutability of the dataset. So if your argument is that improved traceability and immutability is something we should push for in the future I would be in total 100% agreement. But if you say there is something that needs to be "cleaned up" I have to say show me the evidence? Internet articles are not a credible source of evidence. So you can either bring me credible sources, or you're going to be assumed to be wrong.

FWIW, I want to know the truth. If Trump actually won the election and there was fraud I would want Trump to be the president. But without proof there is no legal leg to stand on.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't owe you shit. I'm okay with being assumed to be wrong by you... there is absolutely no downside to that.

IMO there is enough information and bizarre anomalies to question the results of the 2020 Presidential election. The volume seems off the charts compared to elections in the past. You don't have to agree. I'm not here to make anyone believe anything or to prove anything "beyond a shadow of pmward's doubt". What a complete waste of time.

[Cortopassi]

The existence of evidence and the evidence being discovered, produced, and considered are not the same things.

But, when I read something like this (and correct me if I am wrong), the only evidence admissible to you is evidence that proves Trump won. Am I right? So your mind is closed to the possibility that Biden could have at all possibly won?

I read your comment as to the grand conspiracy / left will be able to suppress the real evidence long past Biden being sworn in?

So that's not really a discussion starter is it?

No, you're not right. I think it's possible for both Democrats and Republicans to have reasons to allow fraud in our elections and 2020 is no exception. As I said earlier, it's clear that there are not enough people in power that want to clean it up. It wouldn't be that hard.

Your assumption is that there is something that needs to be "cleaned up". You cannot assume this stuff without evidence. We already have good traceability and immutability in the fact that 90%+ of the vote was on paper ballots. That paper trail exists and is not going anywhere anytime soon. We've discussed things like blockchain in the past, which would improve the traceability and immutability of the dataset. So if your argument is that improved traceability and immutability is something we should push for in the future I would be in total 100% agreement. But if you say there is something that needs to be "cleaned up" I have to say show me the evidence? Internet articles are not a credible source of evidence. So you can either bring me credible sources, or you're going to be assumed to be wrong.

FWIW, I want to know the truth. If Trump actually won the election and there was fraud I would want Trump to be the president. But without proof there is no legal leg to stand on.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't owe you shit. I'm okay with being assumed to be wrong by you... there is absolutely no downside to that.

IMO there is enough information and bizarre anomalies to question the results of the 2020 Presidential election. The volume seems off the charts compared to elections in the past. You don't have to agree. I'm not here to make anyone believe anything or to prove anything "beyond a shadow of pmward's doubt". What a complete waste of time.

That's ok. My position is we (the people/government) have appointed/elected/hired people in positions to ensure the security of the voting process and to determine afterwards if there were issues.

If the end result is not believed by a large percentage of the country, ever, then I am worried where that leads us because if anything, with more and more internet and social media it will only get worse and worse every four years until we figure something out.

[pmward]

What is this "evidence presented at the recent PA and AZ legislative hearings" you refer to?

I haven't watched the AZ legislative hearing; presumably it's a few hours long, so I'm not sure I currently have the time to devote to that. My understanding is that at that hearing, Matt Braynard presented the evidence that he recently provided to the FBI when they reached out to him to request it. I have seen a short clip from the end of the hearing in which some of the legislators sound convinced that the presented evidence casts strong doubt on the AZ election's integrity and that appropriate action needs to be taken.

My point was simply that the claim "there is still no credible evidence" is a very strong one that requires the person making it to have seen all evidence presented and to have judged all of it to be meritless.

I'm not the one making such a strong claim. But you seem to be. Or maybe I just misunderstood you, and what you're actually claiming is that no credible evidence has been presented on this forum yet. If the latter is what you're actually claiming, then that's more defensible.

If I come across a "credible" online source (whatever that even means in our brave new polarized world) that provides a short executive summary of Braynard's key arguments presented in the AZ legislative hearing, I'll be sure to post it somewhere on the forum.

From what I see, he claims he passed some info on, but never actually says what it was. We would need to see the "copy" of the info he is describing. That "copy" of the info he describes would be "credible" at least for discussion purposes. Though the FBI and courts may not find it credible later. Just because the FBI requests to looks at some info does not mean it will later become evidence, that it will make it into court, or that it will have any sway in the ultimate judgment. In an investigation not every lead turns into evidence. Who is to say this guy isn't a total full of shit liar? This is Twitter after all. He cannot be tried for perjury if he lies on Twitter.

And yes my argument is there is no credible non-refutable evidence that has been submitted here yet, nor any that I have seen anywhere else thus far. The reason we were discussing official statements from judges this weekend is because those judges have seen all the evidence, heard all the testimony, and know the laws. So their opinion on the matter is credible. My opinion is not credible, and neither is anyone else's here. I'm happy there is investigation if there is question. But innocent until proven guilty so if that investigation keeps turning up a big nothing...

[pmward]

IMO there is enough information and bizarre anomalies to question the results of the 2020 Presidential election. The volume seems off the charts compared to elections in the past.

And I call complete and total fantasy tinfoil hat bullshit.