Dan Warnick

U.S. Presidential Elections Status - Electoral Votes

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, turbguy said:

I think that was an admission that Biden was inaugurated

Let me know when the entire body of the United Nations laughs at Biden, the way they did #45.

Let me know when the leaders of other countries "sh*t talk" Biden in a room they know is filled with cameras and hot mics.

That is a good one. 

Trump told the UN that he will end their significance, reverse international institutions from supporting globalism to supporting national sovereignty and told NATO leaders that the free ride is over. They laughed because they didn't believe anyone could overcome the powers that be that control them all. It didn't stay that way. 

Biden was welcomed to the thieves club of petty unelected dictators of nominally democratic countries. Excepting Jhonson, who may actually have been elected. 

NK was put aside. Trump freed the Kims from the CIA operations they started with the Soviets (RE "the best enemy money can  buy") in the 1940s. The Abrahamic accords leave only a handful of Arab or Muslim countries without diplomatic relations with Israel. Saudi and Israel doing defense together in the open. Serious results, make today's G7 leadership appear like the lightweight flimsy puppets they are. 

If you want to make judgement on international standing look to Putin and Xi. 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

11 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Yeah, stolen fair and square, got it

More like the ex-president attempting to corrupt Democracy to stay in power (just like his authoritarian buddies):

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122658

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/06/15/emails-trump-white-house-pushed-justice-false-voter-fraud-claims/7698006002/

It will be interesting to hear Rosen's testimony in the house.

Of course the Republicans are attempting to deflect, deny, and distract, but the fact is that Americans already gave a repudiation of the Trump era in the polls despite Trump's contempt for the law and his ahistorical means of attempting to stay in power. 

When the dust clears, I don't think the history books, when written, will be very kind to Trump. 

Edited by surrept33
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this article nailed it in terms of the modern Republican party:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-mccarthy-republican-party-critical-race-theory-1184610/

 

A few days after the podcast taping, I flew to Texas and walked into the alternate reality that Longwell had warned me about. The conference was called Faith and Freedom. It was hosted by Brian Gibson, a fiery pastor from Kentucky who in bearing and enthusiasm resembles a Christian-right version of Alex Jones, and Matt Couch, a pro-Trump podcaster sued by the brother of Seth Rich for spreading cruel conspiracy theories. This was my chance to tap into the Trumpian base at the root, a trip to the far-right fringes to see what was coming next.

No one wore masks — or, as one of the speakers called them, “facial condoms.” (Let that image stay with you.) The conference felt like a mix between a Christian revival, an anti-lockdown protest, and a Las Vegas buffet line of serving up one conspiracy theory after another — about the pandemic (overblown if not fake), about the 2020 election (stolen, duh), about critical race theory (a Marxist communist plot). There was no disagreement about who their enemies were: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (one vendor sold toilet paper with Pelosi’s face on it) and President Biden (the same vendor sold “Fuck Biden” hats), the Democratic governors of California (“Adolf Newsom”) and Kentucky (“Führer Beshear”). They raged against the tyranny of mask mandates, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and employee-sensitivity training. They cheered for cult figures like a Twitter personality named Catturd, who enjoyed a brief flurry of attention after Trump retweeted several Catturd posts about election fraud to the president’s 80 million followers.

What the attendees stood for was harder to ascertain. God, the military, the vets, sure, but little by way of policies or coherent ideologies. There was more anger directed at Big Tech than the usual bogeyman of Big Government. The through line for the weekend, as best as I could tell, was a profound sense of fear and alienation. These people felt like strangers in their own land, to borrow from the sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild, convinced, despite being white and well-off enough to spend hundreds of dollars to attend this conference, that their country was no longer their own. And — here’s the kicker — that elections were no longer the way to bring about change in their country. Most everyone seemed to agree that the 2020 election was one of the great crimes of all time and that Donald Trump was the rightful winner. Eric Wnuck, an Arizona conservative who had led the charge to demand an “audit” of the election result in Maricopa County, captured the mood when he claimed that a free and fair election had been “pilfered by a few deep-state politicians.”

 

Wnuck wouldn’t say what the outcome of the “audit” would be, but he did leave the audience with this message: “What I believe you will see is gut-wrenching and appalling. And you will never, ever trust an election again.”

I heard similar sentiments from other speakers. A podcaster and right-wing influencer named Eric Matheny said Americans had “witnessed . . . a hostile takeover. An election stolen right before our eyes.” The country, he went on, would not be “won with elections.” Change would happen only on a cultural level, within families, in the church, with neighbors talking to neighbors. (His motto, he said, was “Always be red-pilling.”)

This idea wasn’t shared by all the speakers. Dr. Cordie Williams, a right-wing podcaster based out of California, urged those in the audience to run for office themselves. It was up to them to take back their communities and push back against the Marxist-socialist-communist left. “We can’t wait around for a Q or somebody to come and save us,” he said.

But the crowd seemed to gravitate to people like Wnuck and Matheny, the ones who cried fraud and said elections couldn’t be trusted. And why wouldn’t they? If you believe the 2020 election was a vast criminal conspiracy, why would you ever put your trust in another election? But that raises a separate, more troubling question: What happens when a large swath of the population refuses to accept the results of elections?

“The Republican Party is now a countercultural movement,” Madrid tells me. When he joined the Republican Party in the late 1980s, it was the establishment. Its intellectual forebears were George Will, William F. Buckley, Thomas Sowell. Today, the party is a reactionary force fracturing into different pieces. “The defining feature of the ascendant wing of the party is that there is no philosophy. It’s devolving, atomizing, and factionalizing,” Madrid says.

Instead, what unites the party is a resistance to change, to modernity, to the future and any sort of progress. You get ahead in today’s Republican Party by performing your opposition to the Democrats, sticking it to the libs, and raging against a “woke” culture that wants to cancel Dr. Seuss and Mr. Potato Head. Catturd is closer to the power center of the Republican Party than either Mike Madrid or Jennifer Horn, Peter Meijer, Adam Kinzinger, or Liz Cheney.

It’s not hard to see the Republican Party for what it is. Base voters fueled by disinformation. Dissenters treated like apostates. Party leaders who would rather have power in an authoritarian America than fight for principle in our democratic republic. The Republican Party has arrived at a place where it refuses to lose and will change the rules to ensure that it never does. So what happens in a two-party system when one of the major political parties gives up on democracy?

I put this question to Daniel Ziblatt, a Harvard professor and political scientist who co-authored the book How Democracies Die and who studies the rise and fall of democratic governments. Since World War II, in countries with coalition-style governments, nations such as France and Germany, moderate parties team up to beat back extremist movements. That’s not possible in a two-party system like ours, Ziblatt tells me, but up to now the two parties have done a good job of containing and marginalizing the extremist elements in their ranks. Ziblatt acknowledges that the Republican Party has now ceased to do that. Now, there is no position too contorted, no hypocrisy too craven in the name of pleasing the base and acquiring power. Even if that means attacking bedrock American principles like free and fair elections. “Democracy is premised on elections and changes of government,” Ziblatt says. “If you have one party that doesn’t know how to lose, then democracy can’t survive.”

Rep. Meijer has a more pointed response when I ask him the same question. “I think it’s not being too much of a Cassandra to say I am very worried about excusing and normalizing political violence,” he tells me. There was “a low to no probability” that we would see another mass insurrection like what happened on January 6th. But he believes there is a high probability that individual members of Congress could be targeted for intimidation and acts of violence. “I don’t put it beyond the realm of assassinations,” he warns me.

Meijer goes on, “I can’t help but think that some elements of my political party would rather have the loyalty of a few thousand militants — they would rather maintain that — then be able to persuade tens of millions of voters. That, to me, is a chilling recognition.”

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

12 hours ago, turbguy said:

You can keep believing it's not over.

You can keep stretching for reasons to beleive it's not over.

You might not like the result.

It was over since January 20, 2021.

It's over.

 

 

 

What lies in AZ....

i-aint-heard-no-fat-lady.jpg

Edited by Eyes Wide Open
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

44 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

What lies in AZ....

i-aint-heard-no-fat-lady.jpg

No.

You just ain't heard no fat man say so, yet.

I suspect that is what it will take to end this folly.

Edited by turbguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, turbguy said:

No.

You just ain't heard no fat man say so, yet.

I suspect that is what it will take to end this folly.

What lies in AZ..

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/15/2021 at 11:59 AM, Ward Smith said:

Being a lawyer you want to create a perjury trap. After all the DOJ has zero authority here (as was argued by the DNC when they stole the election in California in 2018) so the only thing they can argue is that "civil rights" are being violated? Precisely how pray tell? Perhaps, and this is a weak straw argument, if those "means and methods" you're so curious about were to reveal a voter's identity? Otherwise it's just talking heads, talking out their assess. 

 

Speaking of California.

Sounds like more frivolous lawsuits by losers (like Trump). Note that the OC county recorder is a Republican as well. Not that it should matter, but it's important to stress the non-partisan nature of protecting the legitimacy of the vote. This is obviously hard for Republicans to do these days with half of the party in tinfoil hat mode.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/06/17/federal-judge-tosses-local-lawsuit-that-echoed-trump-claims-of-election-fraud/

 

A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed with prejudice a lawsuit filed by California Republicans that echoed false allegations made by former President Donald Trump about the validity of the 2020 election.

The lawsuit, filed in January by a conservative election watchdog group and 10 failed GOP congressional candidates against a slew of state and county elections officials, claimed the November election in California was rife with “mass irregularities and opportunities for fraud.”

The plaintiffs argued that such conditions have been brewing in California for years, but were exacerbated by changes made last year to make sure all voters in the state had access to a ballot during the COVID-19 pandemic.

But those arguments, similar to claims made in dozens of other lawsuits disputing the 2020 election, were rejected.

 

Federal Judge Andre Birotte wrote in a 13-page ruling published Tuesday that the plaintiffs didn’t offer concrete evidence that problems affected the outcome of California’s November elections. Birotte also said he agreed with the defendants’ statement that the lawsuit amounted to “an incremental undermining of confidence in the election results, past and future.”

Defendants in the case — including officials who run elections in many California counties — welcomed the ruling and Birotte’s reasoning for the decision.

“I think the judge is concurring with what we certainly have known all along, and that is that this election was done with the most intense scrutiny I’ve ever faced,” said Neal Kelley, who has been Orange County’s Registrar of Voters for 18 years and was one of 13 county registrars named as defendants in the suit.

“All of the audits and checks and balances we have in place showed that the will of the voters was carried out,” Kelley added.

The case claimed that by sending vote-by-mail ballots to every registered voter, California opened the door to fraudulent voting. (Before the emergency orders, around 75% of California voters, and all registered voters in Orange County, already received vote-by-mail ballots.) The suit also repeated unfounded claims launched by Trump’s personal lawyers about the use of Dominion voting systems and about election observers not being able to get close enough to the ballot-counting process to see what was happening.

 

Similar claims have been made in roughly 100 cases filed across the country since November. More than 60 of those cases have failed. The Brennan Center for Justice’s Voting Rights Litigation Tracker says 33 such cases are still pending in 13 states plus Washington, D.C., but this is the last case Brennan Center has been tracking in California.

The California suit was filed Jan. 4 in the Central District court in Los Angeles by Election Integrity Project California, a nonprofit watchdog group that’s tied to the conservative Public Law Foundation. The nonprofit fights for stricter voter control measures and sends people to observe how ballots are handled on Election Day.

Also backing the suit were 10 candidates who ran for congress in California in 2020 and lost, including Greg Raths of Mission Viejo, James Bradley of Laguna Niguel, Aja Smith of Moreno Valley, Eric Early of Los Angeles, Alison Hayden of Hayward, Jeffrey Gorman of Santa Cruz, Mark Reed of Sunland, Buzz Patterson of Sacramento, Mike Cargile of Pomona and Kevin Cookingham of Clovis.

The group filed the suit against three state officials: Gov. Gavin Newsom, former Secretary of State Alex Padilla and former Attorney General Xavier Becerra. They also sued 13 county registrars who cover districts touched by the failed congressional candidates, including elections officials for Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

The original claim asked the judge to decertify the results of the November election. But the plaintiffs later dropped that request in an amended complaint, though they still sought an audit of paper ballots (similar to the controversial third-party audit now underway in Arizona) and a repeal of emergency orders that sent ballots to all registered voters.

The 44-page suit contains no specific claims about ballots falsely counted or harm done to any particular candidate. Instead, the plaintiffs argued that votes could have been diluted because of the potential for invalid votes to be counted.

They cite anecdotal reports, for example, that ballots were left unattended and that validation of signatures on vote-by-mail ballots “was either not done or done so quickly that it could not have been effective.” (Of the nearly 18 million ballots Californians cast in the November election, nearly 50,000 were rejected because a signature did not match.)

In response to the suit, attorneys for state and county officials said the allegations of election irregularities and potential fraud “amount to little more than a list of scattershot idiosyncrasies in the elections process.” Instead, they argued, the real goal of the suit is “to make it harder for Californians to vote.”

Defendants’ attorneys also noted that the plaintiffs waited two months after the election to file suit, though some of the election laws they complain about have in place for months or even years. With winners already seated in office, the response to the suit states, “Plaintiffs — comprised of a nonprofit corporation and unsuccessful California congressional candidates who allegedly plan to run for election in 2022 — now seek to nullify the will of the people of California.”

The defense further argued that the plaintiffs were “casting doubt upon the results of the past election and seeking to reverse decades of efforts in California to expand access to the ballot box,” pointing out that the the allegations echoed claims about “fraud and irregularities… that have been debunked and rejected by state and federal courts across the country.”

The defendants’ response notes that “more than 680,000 fraudulent votes would have to have been counted in order for the election outcome to have been changed for all Plaintiffs.” Their margins of defeat ranged from 28,747 votes, in Raths’ loss to Democrat Katie Porter of Irvine, to 165,238 votes, in Gorman’s loss to Democrat Jimmy Panetta of Carmel Valley.

“For such massive election fraud to go unchecked, myriad election officials, their staff and volunteers, and government leaders would need to be active, willing participants,” the response to the suit notes. “Notably, Plaintiffs have not identified any such evidence of a scheme — because none existed.”

In his 18 years as registrar, overseeing about 15 million ballots, Kelley said, “I’ve never seen evidence of any sort of widespread or large-scale fraud. And this is something we look at daily. We’re always looking for anomalies. It’s a constant process.”

Kelley said he welcomes conversation about how to continue to make the voting process more secure and transparent. But he said he hopes Californians will go through the established channels to observe post-election processes and approach the legislature about requested changes rather than trying to change the outcome of an election in court.

Rick Hasen, a professor at UC Irvine who specializes in election law, said he reviewed the case a few weeks ago and found it “weak both factually and legally, and so I’m not surprised it has not gone anywhere.”

But Republicans apparently have been using the case to drum up attention for candidates running for office in 2022.

The Republican Party of Orange County, for example, in May promoted an event where Raths promised to give an update on the lawsuit. Raths is running for Board of Supervisors next year. He didn’t respond to a request to speak for this story.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs and several other congressional candidates who filed the suit also didn’t respond to requests to discuss the judge’s ruling.

 

 

 

 

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

What lies in AZ..

 

 

 

The same lies now in Montana?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, surrept33 said:

Speaking of California.

Sounds like more frivolous lawsuits by losers (like Trump). Note that the OC county recorder is a Republican as well. Not that it should matter, but it's important to stress the non-partisan nature of protecting the legitimacy of the vote. This is obviously hard for Republicans to do these days with half of the party in tinfoil hat mode.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/06/17/federal-judge-tosses-local-lawsuit-that-echoed-trump-claims-of-election-fraud/

 

A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed with prejudice a lawsuit filed by California Republicans that echoed false allegations made by former President Donald Trump about the validity of the 2020 election.

The lawsuit, filed in January by a conservative election watchdog group and 10 failed GOP congressional candidates against a slew of state and county elections officials, claimed the November election in California was rife with “mass irregularities and opportunities for fraud.”

The plaintiffs argued that such conditions have been brewing in California for years, but were exacerbated by changes made last year to make sure all voters in the state had access to a ballot during the COVID-19 pandemic.

But those arguments, similar to claims made in dozens of other lawsuits disputing the 2020 election, were rejected.

 

Federal Judge Andre Birotte wrote in a 13-page ruling published Tuesday that the plaintiffs didn’t offer concrete evidence that problems affected the outcome of California’s November elections. Birotte also said he agreed with the defendants’ statement that the lawsuit amounted to “an incremental undermining of confidence in the election results, past and future.”

Defendants in the case — including officials who run elections in many California counties — welcomed the ruling and Birotte’s reasoning for the decision.

“I think the judge is concurring with what we certainly have known all along, and that is that this election was done with the most intense scrutiny I’ve ever faced,” said Neal Kelley, who has been Orange County’s Registrar of Voters for 18 years and was one of 13 county registrars named as defendants in the suit.

“All of the audits and checks and balances we have in place showed that the will of the voters was carried out,” Kelley added.

The case claimed that by sending vote-by-mail ballots to every registered voter, California opened the door to fraudulent voting. (Before the emergency orders, around 75% of California voters, and all registered voters in Orange County, already received vote-by-mail ballots.) The suit also repeated unfounded claims launched by Trump’s personal lawyers about the use of Dominion voting systems and about election observers not being able to get close enough to the ballot-counting process to see what was happening.

 

Similar claims have been made in roughly 100 cases filed across the country since November. More than 60 of those cases have failed. The Brennan Center for Justice’s Voting Rights Litigation Tracker says 33 such cases are still pending in 13 states plus Washington, D.C., but this is the last case Brennan Center has been tracking in California.

The California suit was filed Jan. 4 in the Central District court in Los Angeles by Election Integrity Project California, a nonprofit watchdog group that’s tied to the conservative Public Law Foundation. The nonprofit fights for stricter voter control measures and sends people to observe how ballots are handled on Election Day.

Also backing the suit were 10 candidates who ran for congress in California in 2020 and lost, including Greg Raths of Mission Viejo, James Bradley of Laguna Niguel, Aja Smith of Moreno Valley, Eric Early of Los Angeles, Alison Hayden of Hayward, Jeffrey Gorman of Santa Cruz, Mark Reed of Sunland, Buzz Patterson of Sacramento, Mike Cargile of Pomona and Kevin Cookingham of Clovis.

The group filed the suit against three state officials: Gov. Gavin Newsom, former Secretary of State Alex Padilla and former Attorney General Xavier Becerra. They also sued 13 county registrars who cover districts touched by the failed congressional candidates, including elections officials for Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

The original claim asked the judge to decertify the results of the November election. But the plaintiffs later dropped that request in an amended complaint, though they still sought an audit of paper ballots (similar to the controversial third-party audit now underway in Arizona) and a repeal of emergency orders that sent ballots to all registered voters.

The 44-page suit contains no specific claims about ballots falsely counted or harm done to any particular candidate. Instead, the plaintiffs argued that votes could have been diluted because of the potential for invalid votes to be counted.

They cite anecdotal reports, for example, that ballots were left unattended and that validation of signatures on vote-by-mail ballots “was either not done or done so quickly that it could not have been effective.” (Of the nearly 18 million ballots Californians cast in the November election, nearly 50,000 were rejected because a signature did not match.)

In response to the suit, attorneys for state and county officials said the allegations of election irregularities and potential fraud “amount to little more than a list of scattershot idiosyncrasies in the elections process.” Instead, they argued, the real goal of the suit is “to make it harder for Californians to vote.”

Defendants’ attorneys also noted that the plaintiffs waited two months after the election to file suit, though some of the election laws they complain about have in place for months or even years. With winners already seated in office, the response to the suit states, “Plaintiffs — comprised of a nonprofit corporation and unsuccessful California congressional candidates who allegedly plan to run for election in 2022 — now seek to nullify the will of the people of California.”

The defense further argued that the plaintiffs were “casting doubt upon the results of the past election and seeking to reverse decades of efforts in California to expand access to the ballot box,” pointing out that the the allegations echoed claims about “fraud and irregularities… that have been debunked and rejected by state and federal courts across the country.”

The defendants’ response notes that “more than 680,000 fraudulent votes would have to have been counted in order for the election outcome to have been changed for all Plaintiffs.” Their margins of defeat ranged from 28,747 votes, in Raths’ loss to Democrat Katie Porter of Irvine, to 165,238 votes, in Gorman’s loss to Democrat Jimmy Panetta of Carmel Valley.

“For such massive election fraud to go unchecked, myriad election officials, their staff and volunteers, and government leaders would need to be active, willing participants,” the response to the suit notes. “Notably, Plaintiffs have not identified any such evidence of a scheme — because none existed.”

In his 18 years as registrar, overseeing about 15 million ballots, Kelley said, “I’ve never seen evidence of any sort of widespread or large-scale fraud. And this is something we look at daily. We’re always looking for anomalies. It’s a constant process.”

Kelley said he welcomes conversation about how to continue to make the voting process more secure and transparent. But he said he hopes Californians will go through the established channels to observe post-election processes and approach the legislature about requested changes rather than trying to change the outcome of an election in court.

Rick Hasen, a professor at UC Irvine who specializes in election law, said he reviewed the case a few weeks ago and found it “weak both factually and legally, and so I’m not surprised it has not gone anywhere.”

But Republicans apparently have been using the case to drum up attention for candidates running for office in 2022.

The Republican Party of Orange County, for example, in May promoted an event where Raths promised to give an update on the lawsuit. Raths is running for Board of Supervisors next year. He didn’t respond to a request to speak for this story.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs and several other congressional candidates who filed the suit also didn’t respond to requests to discuss the judge’s ruling.

 

The election is not about the election boards but the voters. The burden of proof on the conduct of the election is on the boards. Their refusal to allow inspection of their handiwork is a certain sign of them hiding crimes. The judge siding with any election board against candidates and voters seeking audits is not viewing things in balance. The only definitive evidence available is the paper ballots and computer tallying equipment. Accessing them for INDEPENDENT forensic audit must be as easy as an FOIA request. 

The judges are losing their legitimacy by making these rulings. The election boards are already broadly regarded as slimy lazy and dishonest, now growing and morphing into viewing them as seditious criminals. The elections in general and in CA in particular, have been in doubt for decades and more so with every one of the last 3 elections. That ship has sailed. The election boards' loss of reputation (just as bad in CA as it is in AZ) and the deep doubt about elections they conduct will now infect any body siding with them, particularly the judiciary and any Federal body attempting to interject itself. 

In this case, the evidence is weak because there is no access to the witnesses, who are largely govt. employees. And to the evidence. The party observers in CA were Dems and Dems registered as Republicans, few are coming forward, as opposed to other states where Dems have yet to perfect control over who is within view of the election work. 

The presumption of innocence by a judge on the board's end is misplaced.  "scattershot idiosyncrasies in the elections process" is what is visible to the outsider in an electoral count. A higher standard of evidence can not be applied until discovery proceeds and ballot samples tested by someone other than the election board or their chosen "auditors". 

The new "fraudit" campaign from the Dems is creating executive overreach by secretaries of state introducing rules to prevent audits statewide in CO and now MI, whereby they are writing law, which they have no power to do. I expect legislatures will start work to eliminate relationships between  the SOS and the election process to remove them from the "chain of command" and authority. Possibly eliminating all centralized executive branch authority in elections entirely. 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, surrept33 said:

false allegations made by former President Donald Trump about the validity of the 2020 election

That quote from the article disqualifies it as a factual discussion. It predetermines facts axiomatically, in line with MSM dogma, thus can not be considered journalism. The paper's reputation is then in doubt. 

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, turbguy said:

Proof??

Pennsylvania governor’s office said in a press release, over 3 million people requested mail ballots for the 2020 general election. The  data provided by the Pennsylvania Secretary of State’s office to the U.S. Elections Project shows that the number of mail ballots returned – over 2.6 million – has not exceeded the number requested in the state.

https://www.governor.pa.gov/newsroom/pennsylvanians-urged-to-hand-deliver-mail-ballots-immediately/

Prove me in error!

(Gee, that took about 90 seconds on a web search).

I like the cartoon, though!

So you're asking the burglar if he's got an alibi? 

Plenty of evidence if you are willing to click

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, surrept33 said:

You are basically asking for a Myanmar-like situation. This won't happen in the US.

There is a reason why fringe "news" sites like Gatewaypundit are not syndicated by Google and Facebook anymore. It's not a conservative or liberal thing. It's a "are they carriers of 99% misinformation" thing. 

Confirmation bias is one hellova drug, and you are literally getting high off of fake news.

 

Not asking, expecting that something of that nature is on the way, because the Dems+RINOs will react illegally due to panic and will tank the country into chaos. In this chaos the military will be forced into action to replace a non functional government. Since that would be within the broad guidelines of the Q narrative then it would presumably be a Q directed military operation. The transition from corporate USA to organic republic of the several states is supposed to require a new election for all elected Federal offices and then possibly new appointments as well. It would explain Trump's return to the campaign trail now. The transition law is not public but anons talk of a 120 day period from the end of the corporate USA. The question is what is the trigger date from which the count applies. Some point to it starting upon imposition of martial law, others point to other markers like the  inauguration (which supposedly was the end of the USA corp USA bankruptcy dissolution). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

So you're asking the burglar if he's got an alibi? 

Plenty of evidence if you are willing to click

I clicked.

Did not see anything a reasonable person would consider "evidence".

Period

Edited by turbguy
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

I clicked.

Did not see anything a reasonable person would consider "evidence".

Period

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj4MuFp4hYE&ab_channel=DrDouglasGFrank

This reference from Ward's URL

Watch it and ask yourself if there is any possibility that there was an honest election. They don't even have an honest voter registry. It is inflated with fake voters. The method of determining the figures of how many fake voters are added is based on the 2010 census data shifted and multiplied by a constant. That leaves no possibility that the subsequent ballot counts are real. This is a near universal artifact of Dem precincts/counties. It is officials in the SOS office stuffing the registry. There is nothing but criminal intent in the election system in PA. Top to bottom. Only on the floor officials and observers have any kind of honest contribution, and thousands of them signed affidavits of fraud they had witnessed. 

You can shut your eyes if you wish, or pretend you didn't know this, but we know that you do know that there is nothing real in the election, all has been padded with fake registries to back up fake ballots and topped off with algorithmic vote swapping and injection at the election management software layer, which Byrne and Lindell document down to packet level. That being only part of the  digital manipulation as plenty of it occurred locally as well. With disqualifying levels of ballot rejections and undocumented adjudications of them. 

There is no evidence, in fact, that there was any relationship at all between the election outcomes and the actual votes, only the false assertions by election officials who act like cornered criminals. 

  • Great Response! 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj4MuFp4hYE&ab_channel=DrDouglasGFrank

This reference from Ward's URL

Watch it and ask yourself if there is any possibility that there was an honest election. They don't even have an honest voter registry. It is inflated with fake voters. The method of determining the figures of how many fake voters are added is based on the 2010 census data shifted and multiplied by a constant. That leaves no possibility that the subsequent ballot counts are real. This is a near universal artifact of Dem precincts/counties. It is officials in the SOS office stuffing the registry. There is nothing but criminal intent in the election system in PA. Top to bottom. Only on the floor officials and observers have any kind of honest contribution, and thousands of them signed affidavits of fraud they had witnessed. 

You can shut your eyes if you wish, or pretend you didn't know this, but we know that you do know that there is nothing real in the election, all has been padded with fake registries to back up fake ballots and topped off with algorithmic vote swapping and injection at the election management software layer, which Byrne and Lindell document down to packet level. That being only part of the  digital manipulation as plenty of it occurred locally as well. With disqualifying levels of ballot rejections and undocumented adjudications of them. 

There is no evidence, in fact, that there was any relationship at all between the election outcomes and the actual votes, only the false assertions by election officials who act like cornered criminals. 

Both Shiva and Frank's "allegations" are pseudo-math:

https://naim-kabir.medium.com/dr-shiva-ayyadurai-doubles-down-on-his-con-7ba25b09b05c

https://blog.cluster-text.com/2020/12/02/evaluating-dr-shivas-claims-of-election-fraud-in-michigan/

Of course, you can find many other rebuttals with a simple Google search. There is a reason why these claims are not taken seriously. 

 

My opinion - Dr Shiva needs to go back to pattern recognition basics: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/pattern-recognition-machine-learning/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, surrept33 said:

Both Shiva and Frank's "allegations" are pseudo-math:

https://naim-kabir.medium.com/dr-shiva-ayyadurai-doubles-down-on-his-con-7ba25b09b05c

https://blog.cluster-text.com/2020/12/02/evaluating-dr-shivas-claims-of-election-fraud-in-michigan/

Of course, you can find many other rebuttals with a simple Google search. There is a reason why these claims are not taken seriously. 

 

My opinion - Dr Shiva needs to go back to pattern recognition basics: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/pattern-recognition-machine-learning/

 

They are data science, not statistics. The criticism is flat earth.

No precinct has the same distribution of population by age as the national census. Or do you not see the point and are satisfied by collecting stray counter-arguments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/18/2021 at 9:15 PM, turbguy said:

I believe there was real election fraud at the the 1876 election between Tilden and Hayes.

I mean people literally stuffing ballot boxes and defacing ballots with ink to make them unreadable.

I mean a state literally certifying two different results. 

Tilden was one legitimate vote short of winning the Electoral College, and Hayes having over 200,000 fewer counted votes.

Congress certified Hayes the winner.

That’s it.

That’s all.

Election over.

No do-overs.

Tilden almost certainly won that election.

Except he didn’t.

Trump lost.

It’s over.

There is no mechanism in the U.S. Constitution for a reset, do-over, “mulligan”, replay or whatever you want.

Once Biden took that oath, he’s the president until he dies, resigns, is impeached or January 2025 (whichever comes first).

If any of those first three happens, then the Asian-Black lady becomes president.

If she dies too, then it’s the old lady from California.

If the entire executive branch of government and the House Speaker  and Senate President Pro-tem are somehow killed except for the Secretary of Transportation, then Pete Buttigieg becomes President.

Donald Trump can run for president in 2024 if he desires.

If he wins that election, he’s president again. No questions asked.

 

Control of the 2022 congress is my hope and it may need all the proof which can be mustered that the last election depended on many types of vote cheating, censorship, government intervention in the press etc. Standing by and waiting for the Demoncrats to gain control is not the way to regain control of the government. Winning in 2024 must be built on continuous efforts to expose government malfeasance and Democrat complicity in cheating along with their many lies and failures to lead the country and follow the correct economic plan. 

We are on the path toward much higher energy prices, higher prices in general, higher inflation and possibly stagflation. The voters need to be educated on all of the above and well informed of all the failures of the left wing in power plus their connections with Chinese money and that of all the other groups that support leftist ideas. That includes government unions, many corporations, and deep state actors. It will not be an easy fight. Opposing the statist establishment will be a continuous struggle. The people must understand that once the middle class is destroyed, it will be much harder to preserve our freedoms. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Control of the 2022 congress is my hope and it may need all the proof which can be mustered that the last election depended on many types of vote cheating, censorship, government intervention in the press etc. Standing by and waiting for the Demoncrats to gain control is not the way to regain control of the government. Winning in 2024 must be built on continuous efforts to expose government malfeasance and Democrat complicity in cheating along with their many lies and failures to lead the country and follow the correct economic plan. 

We are on the path toward much higher energy prices, higher prices in general, higher inflation and possibly stagflation. The voters need to be educated on all of the above and well informed of all the failures of the left wing in power plus their connections with Chinese money and that of all the other groups that support leftist ideas. That includes government unions, many corporations, and deep state actors. It will not be an easy fight. Opposing the statist establishment will be a continuous struggle. The people must understand that once the middle class is destroyed, it will be much harder to preserve our freedoms. 

 

166131698_10225223164867750_5364006263190118648_n.jpg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, turbguy said:

It feels to me that #45 wants a civil war, not China.

Sure is a whole lot (not all, there are "fringes") of alt-news that recognize Biden is president.

I can find just about any view I want on the net.  So can you.

It's over.

Why does it "feel to you" like Trump wants a civil war? Because you are either lying to yourself or others or you have been brainwashed buy ay total line of propaganda. There is no basis whatsoever for such a view to be taken seriously! Saying it does is ridiculous. All of the information points to an FBI and Pelosi led red flag operation. I actually think you know better, but maybe not. 

Who invaded the Capitol? 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19qLxuaWqyPKPsE7xyT2ATV6-I9J_BhfvkChb3E-NL4o/edit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, surrept33 said:

More like the ex-president attempting to corrupt Democracy to stay in power (just like his authoritarian buddies):

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122658

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/06/15/emails-trump-white-house-pushed-justice-false-voter-fraud-claims/7698006002/

It will be interesting to hear Rosen's testimony in the house.

Of course the Republicans are attempting to deflect, deny, and distract, but the fact is that Americans already gave a repudiation of the Trump era in the polls despite Trump's contempt for the law and his ahistorical means of attempting to stay in power. 

When the dust clears, I don't think the history books, when written, will be very kind to Trump. 

The Republicans actually gained votes in the congress and are poised to take control in 2022. They also have an excellent chance at taking over the Senate in 2022. President Trump could be offered the Speakership of the House. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Why does it "feel to you" like Trump wants a civil war? Because you are either lying to yourself or others or you have been brainwashed buy ay total line of propaganda. There is no basis whatsoever for such a view to be taken seriously! Saying it does is ridiculous. All of the information points to an FBI and Pelosi led red flag operation. I actually think you know better, but maybe not.

Since Trump has yet to formally cede the election to Biden, he continues to fuel fractionation of the USA.

Have you EVER heard Trump PERSONALLY say he was wrong (without being sarcastic, or wrapping it in some forgivable excuse), or lost a case, without twisting an outcome to blame it on anybody else instead of his own actions? 

While it's rare, it typically comes from the mouth of an assistant.

If Trump were to concede the election, it would quash the divisions it is generating tat are widening every day.

His stubbornness concerning his certified loss is one main reason for breaking the GOP into two parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Why does it "feel to you" like Trump wants a civil war? Because you are either lying to yourself or others or you have been brainwashed buy ay total line of propaganda. There is no basis whatsoever for such a view to be taken seriously! Saying it does is ridiculous. All of the information points to an FBI and Pelosi led red flag operation. I actually think you know better, but maybe not. 

Who invaded the Capitol? 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19qLxuaWqyPKPsE7xyT2ATV6-I9J_BhfvkChb3E-NL4o/edit

Have you noted that link if full questions, and very few and unfounded "facts"?

Can you point me to any reliable source that "points to an FBI and Pelosi led red flag operation"?  Please don't use anything Tucker might come up with, he only first asks questions and comes up with his own implausible answers.

There are still those who feel the Kennedy assassination was "rigged", the moon landing was produced on a sound stage, January 20th was a performance by the "deep state", and the earth is flat.

I know it must be hard and discouraging for some to accept the outcome.

January 6th ain't going away.

I saw herds of obvious supporters force entry the capital.

I also saw herds of Republicans refuse to perform a proper investigation.

Why is that?

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Have you noted that link if full questions, and very few and unfounded "facts"?

Can you point me to any reliable source that "points to an FBI and Pelosi led red flag operation"?  Please don't use anything Tucker might come up with, he only first asks questions and comes up with his own implausible answers.

There are still those who feel the Kennedy assassination was "rigged", the moon landing was produced on a sound stage, January 20th was a performance by the "deep state", and the earth is flat.

I know it must be hard and discouraging for some to accept the outcome.

January 6th ain't going away.

I saw herds of obvious supporters force entry the capital.

I also saw herds of Republicans refuse to perform a proper investigation.

Why is that?

You are avoiding the obvious facts of the matter, and I think it is just bias. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Since Trump has yet to formally cede the election to Biden, he continues to fuel fractionation of the USA.

Have you EVER heard Trump PERSONALLY say he was wrong (without being sarcastic, or wrapping it in some forgivable excuse), or lost a case, without twisting an outcome to blame it on anybody else instead of his own actions? 

While it's rare, it typically comes from the mouth of an assistant.

If Trump were to concede the election, it would quash the divisions it is generating tat are widening every day.

His stubbornness concerning his certified loss is one main reason for breaking the GOP into two parties.

The GOP is gradually eliminating the RINOS. It is not easy because accepting money from corporations or other organizations is common for both parties. It is addictive. My own congressman is Rodney Davis who is an OK guy but is a RINO in essence. He has served almost nine terms and will probably stay a congressman because we have no strong Republicans that could primary him and still win against the government unions, especially the teachers unions. I will vote for him because he is preferable to any Democrat that would be nominate today. 

Trump has essentially conceded the election but its accuracy needs to be thoroughly investigated and the electoral process needs to be reformed due to many changes that Democratic states have instigated over the last few years. Mail in voting en masse is one. Vote harvesting is one. Using old inaccurate voting roles is one. Automatic drivers licence voting registration is one. Censorship by large online media organizations is possibly the most important single factor. 

The 2020 election flaws should never be forgotten and must be reformed. Otherwise we will become like any faux democracy although we are actually a republic. 

I do not agree with those who think that there is any way to reinstall Trump as President before 2024. I would like to see him be Speaker of the House in 2022 and then possibly run again in 2024 if he wishes. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.