The Next President is...

[17D_guy]

1 hour ago, Sim said:

 

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1326634874988617729.html

 “We have 234 pages of sworn affidavits under penalty of perjury alleging election irregularities from just ONE county in Michigan ALLEGATIONS:

•  
• EYEWITNESS saw 50 ballots fed many times into scanner
• EYEWITNESSES say Jan 1, 1900 was recorded in poll book as DOB for many not in book so they could count ballots
• EYEWITNESS saw 35 ballots counted even though not connected to voter record
• EYEWITNESS saw batch of ballots, 60% had SAME signature
• EYEWITNESS saw ballot batch scanned 5 times
• EYEWITNESS saw poll workers marking ballot with no mark for candidates
• EYEWITNESSES saw ballots counted with no signature or postmark
• • VOTER said deceased son was recorded as voting twice
  • EYEWITNESS saw provisional ballots placed in tabulation box
  • PASSENGERS dropped off more ballots than people in car
  • WITNESS told ballots received after election were being pre-dated, counted
  • FAILED software that caused error in Antrim County used in Wayne County
  • GOP challengers not readmitted but Dems admitted

  • GOP challengers forced to stay away while Dems were not

  • GOP challengers physically pushed from counting tables by officials
  • GOP challengers subjected to racial harassment
  • DEM challengers gave out packet: “Tactics to Distract GOP Challengers”

  • Election officials covered windows so challengers couldn’t observe counting

  • Election officials cheered when GOP challenger ejected
  • GOP challenges to suspect ballots ignored
  • Challengers barred from observing ballot duplication process”

   

How about the other counties, and other states?  Like also how after 25% it changes from "eyewitness" to...not that.  I'm sure that won't be a problem in court.

Also, just because it's in CAPS doesn't make it more official.  FYI.

[17D_guy]

2 hours ago, Danger41 said:

I know it’s Bill Maher, but trust me you non-Dems (and probably Dems) will like this.

Damn, that was really good. It's why I only voted blue at Pres, Red almost everything else.  Though, I will say he doesn't have the read on that hockey player who bullied the kid. 

Quote

Miller and another teen-ager were charged with assault and violating the Ohio Safe Schools Act in February 2016, when they were accused of making Meyer-Crothers eat candy that had been placed in a urinal. Other accounts in a police report indicate the boys urinated on the candy before giving it to Meyer-Crothers.

Miller and the other teen then punched and pushed Meyer-Crothers, according to the police report obtained by The Republic. The report also says Miller lied to school officials about his involvement.

At the time, Meyer-Crothers had the mental ability of a 10-year-old, according to his mom.

There are additional reports he kept verbally abusing the kid after the court case, but I can't be bothered to find them now.  Sorry.

[Waingro]

2 hours ago, Sim said:

 

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1326634874988617729.html

 “We have 234 pages of sworn affidavits under penalty of perjury alleging election irregularities from just ONE county in Michigan ALLEGATIONS:

The all caps make it a certainty that a boomer wrote this. It looks even more embarrassing in light of the facts behind Michigan's ALLEGATIONS though:

"But a closer look at the affidavits showed that many did not allege any wrongdoing with ballots. Instead, they showed poll challengers complaining about other things: a loud public-address system, mean looks from poll workers, and a Democratic poll watcher who said “Go back to the suburbs, Karen.”

 

Some poll observers had become suspicious simply after seeing many ballots cast for Democrats — in Detroit, a heavily Democratic city where Biden won 94 percent of the vote. “I specifically noticed that every ballot I observed was cast for Joe Biden,” one observer wrote. The Trump campaign filed that as evidence in court.

 

In other cases, poll challengers raised issues with procedures that election workers say were normal. Some, for instance, noted that workers input voters’ birth dates as January 1, 1900. Election officials say that was a quirk of the computer system: It required workers to enter a voter’s birth date at a step when they did not have access to that information, so they were told to enter a placeholder.

 

So far, Trump and his allies have faced a judge three times in Michigan.

 

All three times, it went poorly.

 

In one case, the plaintiffs relied on testimony from a poll worker, who was relaying what she’d been told by an unidentified election worker.

 

Judge Cynthia Stephens said that was hearsay. Inadmissible. The lawyer tried to argue.

 

“ ‘I heard somebody else say something,’ ” Stephens said. “Tell me why that’s not hearsay. Come on, now.”

 

Stephens ruled against the plaintiffs.

 

A few days later, Judge Timothy M. Kenny heard a similar argument from another group of Republican plaintiffs. He asked how well the Republican poll-watchers understood the procedures they were watching.

 

The city had conducted a “walk-through” for Republican poll-challengers in late October, long before the counting began, to show how the absentee ballot counting procedure worked.

 

Had the plaintiff’s poll watchers been there, to learn about the process they were now objecting to?

 

No, the plaintiff’s lawyer said. They had not known about it.

 

“Plaintiff’s affiants did not have a full understanding of the [convention center] absentee ballot counting process,” Kenny wrote in an opinion. “However, sinister, fraudulent motives were ascribed to the process and the City of Detroit. Plaintiff’s interpretation of events is incorrect and not credible.”

[Pooter]

You're gonna need a lot more affidavits from election worker randos to convince me that election fraud is the root cause of trump losing virtually every swing state up for grabs and the popular vote by 6-9 million. 
 

You can't take "eyewitness" anecdotes from one district and extrapolate that into a broader fraud narrative in an election where 150 million people voted. 

[Day Man]

2 hours ago, Sim said:

PASSENGERS dropped off more ballots than people in car

uhhh...is this illegal?

[drewpey]

Don't disagree with most of what Maher said.  Before the election I felt we were ready for a bigger swing to the left, but the election results say otherwise.  The democrats need to focus on tangible results for the working class American to continue to win.  There are purists that want the sky when it comes to progressive ideas, but I think the best we can do right now is hold the line and fight to keep regressives out of office.

I still think healthcare is the key.  It literally affects everyone, and political affiliation doesn't really matter when you are dyeing because you are broke.  Trump teased a healthcare plan for his entire presidency because the idea polls well across the board, but the concept is anathema to the republican ideals, so they couldn't come up with anything.

[Negatory]

Still looking for your response to the cognitive dissonance question of the hour:

Why did dems allow republicans to win the senate if they were controlling everything through massive manipulation? Could it be that Trump actually is unpopular? Maybe when you receive 5 million less popular votes than the other guy, you should lose?

 

And your whole argument still boils down to people's Presidential votes from Wyoming, North Dakota, and Alaska should count 2-3 times as much as someone from California, Florida, or Texas. That's the electoral college, a totally logical thing that definitely makes sense in the modern world.

[slackline]

You'll never get answers. Give up. It's like the Biden laptop with all of its damning, foolproof evidence. Gonna change the election, smoking gun, etc. Mum's the word on it. They threw a hail Mary bluff with it, but in truth, had nothing.

You'll never hear a mea culpa on it. They'll say, but the true media, the YouTube army says it's true! MSM wouldn't let it be published... Some other such garbage.

Remember, I asked about this very outcome before the election.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SurelySerious]

23 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Still looking for your response to the cognitive dissonance question of the hour:

Why did dems allow republicans to win the senate if they were controlling everything through massive manipulation? Could it be that Trump actually is unpopular? Maybe when you receive 5 million less popular votes than the other guy, you should lose?

 

And your whole argument still boils down to people's Presidential votes from Wyoming, North Dakota, and Alaska should count 2-3 times as much as someone from California, Florida, or Texas. That's the electoral college, a totally logical thing that definitely makes sense in the modern world.

The Electoral College absolutely still makes sense, your sarcasm aside. Your argument is essentially the same as getting rid of the senate because more populous states want to determine everything with respect to legislation. No thanks. 

[Negatory]

It doesn't "absolutely still make sense." There have been over 700 formal proposals to get rid of the electoral college since 1800, with it almost happening in the Bayh-Celler amendment of 1970. Which was only defeated due to a real philosophical and legal marvel - the filibuster. It's not like it is some philosophical truth.

In my opinion, it's antithetical to true democracy.

Edited November 15, 2020 by Negatory

[FLEA]

26 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Still looking for your response to the cognitive dissonance question of the hour:

Why did dems allow republicans to win the senate if they were controlling everything through massive manipulation? Could it be that Trump actually is unpopular? Maybe when you receive 5 million less popular votes than the other guy, you should lose?

 

And your whole argument still boils down to people's Presidential votes from Wyoming, North Dakota, and Alaska should count 2-3 times as much as someone from California, Florida, or Texas. That's the electoral college, a totally logical thing that definitely makes sense in the modern world.

The simplest answer is most often the correct one. The Dems lost the senate while committing voter fraud because the Republicans were also committing voter fraud. (Which is why they can be confident of its existence and its relevance.) Neither side knows exactly how much fraud the other is committing, therefore they can only tip and election and never guarantee it. 

 

Not saying this is 100% true but it absolutely, 100% makes sense in today's world, which makes it plausible. 

[Negatory]

6 minutes ago, slackline said:

You'll never hear a mea culpa on it. They'll say, but the true media, the YouTube army says it's true! MSM wouldn't let it be published... Some other such garbage.

Just wait until deepfakes make up 90% of internet content in 5 years. It will only get worse.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/artificial-intelligence-created-deepfake-videos-22761685

Mark my words, in 5 years the same crowd is going to be sending deepfakes of Biden molesting kids or murdering people and share that as truth. And a questionably high % of America will believe it because it aligns with their politics.

[Negatory]

3 minutes ago, FLEA said:

The simplest answer is most often the correct one. The Dems lost the senate while committing voter fraud because the Republicans were also committing voter fraud. (Which is why they can be confident of its existence and its relevance.) Neither side knows exactly how much fraud the other is committing, therefore they can only tip and election and never guarantee it. 

 

Not saying this is 100% true but it absolutely, 100% makes sense in today's world, which makes it plausible. 

In my mind that's a pretty complicated answer, haha. I think the simplest answer is that there probably isn't significant enough fraud on either side to matter.

Not saying it doesn't make sense, though.

[FLEA]

1 minute ago, Negatory said:

In my mind that's a pretty complicated answer, haha. I think the simplest answer is that there probably isn't significant enough fraud on either side to matter.

Not saying it doesn't make sense, though.

You must be an incredibly trusting person. I salute your optimism but in no way can I believe that people, especially politicians, are so moral they would refrain from a rather obvious means of securing power. 

[Pooter]

11 minutes ago, Negatory said:

It doesn't "absolutely still make sense." There have been over 700 formal proposals to get rid of the electoral college since 1800, with it almost happening in the Bayh-Celler amendment of 1970. Which was only defeated due to a real philosophical and legal marvel - the filibuster. It's not like it is some philosophical truth.

In my opinion, it's antithetical to true democracy.

It's almost like we aren't a true democracy.. by design. 

[slackline]

It doesn't "absolutely still make sense." There have been over 700 formal proposals to get rid of the electoral college since 1800, with it almost happening in the Bayh-Celler amendment of 1970. Which was only defeated due to a real philosophical and legal marvel - the filibuster. It's not like it is some philosophical truth.
In my opinion, it's antithetical to true democracy.

I gotta disagree with you on this one. The country is not evenly divided, and it is unhealthy for all the big cities to be making the legislation that governs the rural areas. Electoral college is the best prevention against one specific ideology running the country while alienating an entire half of the country. It's a good way to keep the masses from voting mob rules.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pooter]

4 minutes ago, slackline said:

I gotta disagree with you on this one. The country is not evenly divided, and it is unhealthy for all the big cities to be making the legislation that governs the rural areas. Electoral college is the best prevention against one specific ideology running the country while alienating an entire half of the country. It's a good way to keep the masses from voting mob rules.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm inclined to agree with you, but let's be honest with ourselves here. In an alternate reality, if big cities skewed heavily republican, you and I both know the right would be railing against the electoral college as un-democratic. 

This is the most annoying part of politics to me: anyone that pretends that either party actually has principles. Pragmatic opportunism drives 100% of politics. 

[Negatory]

That's fine, you guys are cleared to disagree. I still think you're wrong. There are more republican voters in California, whose votes don't matter at all, than those in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and West Virginia combined.

If you look into it, you aren't really following the constitutional founding fathers' intentions. The number of electors was always intended to be the number of senators plus the number of representatives. As our society grew from about 35k people / representative to the 700k people / rep that we have now, the impact of the people should have increased proportionally because the number of representatives should have increased. George Washington argued that there should be a representative for every 30k people. But in  1913, # of representatives was capped arbitrarily to 435. This contributed, strongly, to the undue voter weight of extremely small portions of America and the disregard for vast sects of society. 

Now the tyranny of the minority has resulted in 2 of the last 3 presidents being elected by the minority of voters. Before, this had only happened 3 times. I'm doubtful this was the intent of the constitution or the founding fathers.

Or maybe California should just split into 5-10 smaller states so that their voices are heard.

Edited November 15, 2020 by Negatory

[Pooter]

14 minutes ago, Negatory said:

That's fine, you guys are cleared to disagree. I still think you're wrong. There are more republican voters in California, whose votes don't matter at all, than those in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and West Virginia combined.

If you look into it, you aren't really following the constitutional founding fathers' intentions. The number of electors was always intended to be the number of senators plus the number of representatives. As our society grew from about 35k people / representative to the 700k people / rep that we have now, the impact of the people should have increased proportionally because the number of representatives should have increased. George Washington argued that there should be a representative for every 30k people. But in  1913, # of representatives was capped arbitrarily to 435. This contributed, strongly, to the undue voter weight of extremely small portions of America and the disregard for vast sects of society. 

Now the tyranny of the minority has resulted in 2 of the last 3 presidents being elected by the minority of voters. Before, this had only happened 3 times. I'm doubtful this was the intent of the constitution or the founding fathers.

Or maybe California should just split into 5-10 smaller states so that their voices are heard.

All valid puts, but I still maintain that the left hates the electoral college simply because it doesn't benefit them. See my comment on political opportunism.
 

You're arguing on principle, but if we applied that principle evenly, why don't they have a problem with Rhode Island, Vermont, and Connecticut electors or the senate in general? Is every not perfectly representational part of our government bad or just the parts that don't currently benefit the left?

[SurelySerious]

28 minutes ago, Pooter said:

I'm inclined to agree with you, but let's be honest with ourselves here. In an alternate reality, if big cities skewed heavily republican, you and I both know the right would be railing against the electoral college as un-democratic. 

This is the most annoying part of politics to me: anyone that pretends that either party actually has principles. Pragmatic opportunism drives 100% of politics. 

Nope, it should function as written no matter what the leaning of the metropolis. Those are the rules and how our country operates. 
 

The idea of California being at least three states, however, is definitely a good academic exercise because of how different things are in all those areas. 

[slackline]

Or maybe California should just split into 5-10 smaller states so that their voices are heard.

Tempted to "like" your post just for this alone. I would have had you said, "should just fall off into the ocean..."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Waingro]

25 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

Nope, it should function as written no matter what the leaning of the metropolis. Those are the rules and how our country operates. 

Except, it hasn't functioned as written in over 100 years, when the number of representatives was capped at 435. Anyone who claims to support the idea of the electoral college due to founding principles has to at least acknowledge this disparity, that gives a Wyoming resident 3x the voting power of a Texas resident. 

The "Wyoming Rule" is a workable fix for this, but I doubt we'll see it. 

[Negatory]

47 minutes ago, Pooter said:

You're arguing on principle, but if we applied that principle evenly, why don't they have a problem with Rhode Island, Vermont, and Connecticut electors or the senate in general? Is every not perfectly representational part of our government bad or just the parts that don't currently benefit the left?

I agree.

Delaware, Vermont, Rhode Island, DC, Hawaii. All more examples of places that have more voting weight than they should.

Edited November 15, 2020 by Negatory

[Waingro]

5 minutes ago, Negatory said:

I agree.

Delaware, Vermont, Rhode Island, DC, Hawaii. All more examples of places that have more voting weight than they should.

Be careful, you're going counter to the tribal narrative that one can only support a change that benefits their team. 

PYB will unlikely be able to process this disconnect! 

[Guardian]

It doesn't "absolutely still make sense." There have been over 700 formal proposals to get rid of the electoral college since 1800, with it almost happening in the Bayh-Celler amendment of 1970. Which was only defeated due to a real philosophical and legal marvel - the filibuster. It's not like it is some philosophical truth.
In my opinion, it's antithetical to true democracy.

The US isn’t and shouldn’t be a true democracy. Not sure anyone claims it is.