The Next President is...

[Guardian]

Same for you, brother. You literally can't even accept things that you write as facts, as was evidenced by the last couple days.

Good thing no one has any idea what you are talking about. I wasn’t proven wrong. I was proven right. That you couldn’t read and understand the things I said without injecting your assumptions into it and claiming I said things I didn’t. So evidence away if you can.

Please explain how prayer U is wrong in the above videos. With facts and reason. Not just saying some liberal think tank says they are wrong or there is no value or truth to what they say. Please. Humor me. Or explain why the more companionate party is the Democrat Party with respect to the average citizen. I don’t think it’s possible by you or anyone. Facts don’t care about your emotions Negatory.

[Negatory]

7 minutes ago, Guardian said:

What fact is that. That there are racists on both sides. That democrats 155 years ago are racist and that Harris is incredibly racist? Yeah. I’m sure some racists voted for trump. Just like I’m positive racists voted for Biden. Equal outcome and equity are inherently racist.

Armed protesters aren’t riots caused by riots. And maybe there was one riot caused by the right. There were something like 90 straight days in Portland of multiple riots throughout the city not caused by the right. So one compared to how many?

Don’t worry man. I hold you and SLACK on the same level of incoherence and in ability to rationalize or answer questions. You twist, manipulate and try to justify something other than what is being talked about. At least it doesn’t seem that you are reverting to name calling like others. But just because you don’t want the left to be a party of racists or ones that support systematic racism doesn’t mean they aren’t. They absolutely are.

So now I would like to quote my good friend guardian who always says that EXACT WORDING is the only thing that matters. The guy who won't try to understand your message, just pick apart nitnoid arguments. You said there were zero riots. Guess your credibility is shot forever.

[Guardian]

That’s you not focusing on the questions.

I can be wrong. And if I’m proven wrong can and do apologize.

Still not seeing anything from you. Very much shows how you aren’t proving to be worth anyone’s time.

[Negatory]

Your videos focus primarily on the 1800s and a single quote from LBJ. Doesn't seem like a very rigorous argument. It's not important. The point is that neither party outwardly supports racism. Trying to argue that dems are the party of racists with these arguments is grasping at straws.

And I agree that racial politics and identity politics are terrible. I don't support them. Many people who voted D don't. Your arguments are pedantic and churlish and, to that, I say good day. 

Good day, sir. I said good day!

 

 

Anyways, how 'bout them Bears?

[gearhog]

3 minutes ago, Negatory said:

You aren't being a genuine or honest debate partner. Every person has already said election fraud exists, just that there is absolutely no evidence that it is of any magnitude that would be even close to mattering. See here's an example of a terrible citizen voting twice:

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/election/article246971357.html

I recommend we throw him in jail. Or maybe he was just following what a political leader said? Maybe it's his fault?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-vote/trump-encourages-supporters-to-try-to-vote-twice-sparking-uproar-idUSKBN25U0KK

The burden of proof is on you to prove something exists - not the normal system to prove something doesn't exist. That's how things work. You have circumstantial evidence, AT BEST, and you are mad that no one is listening. It's childish and embarrassing. Sorry the judges in every state keep telling you no, your lawsuits don't work.

And you still need to address the easy question that you still haven't: How did republicans keep the senate when mass coordinated voter fraud against your party was conducted? The party of cognitive dissonance has spoken!

Next...

If I'm not being genuine or honest, then I am being disingenuous and dishonest. You're making a claim. According to you, the burden of proof lies with the claimant, yet you haven't quoted any text where I have been disingenuous or dishonest. Maybe I have, I don't know. It certainly wasn't my intent. But if you provide the evidence, I'd very much like to apologize for it, and make corrections.

I'm glad you also agree that fraud exists. But you still haven't answered the question as to what that fraud is and what the evidence would be. Curiously, the article you linked to isn't an example of "fraud." It's an example of an honest man who unintentionally had his vote recorded twice. Please understand, I'm left to assume you either don't know the definition of the word "fraud" or are disingenuously or dishonestly making the claim this man intentionally committed a fraudulent act. Which is it? Forget it, let's let that one go. Do you have any real examples?

Where have I indicated that I'm upset that no one is listening? Again, another specious claim. I don't have circumstantial evidence, I don't have any lawsuits. Why are you using the terms "you" and "your"? If I were mad and childish, wouldn't I be using profane insults, refusing to engage, and quitting the conversation when it became apparent I was losing?

Although you failed, you tried to answer my question so I'd be happy to address yours.

How did they keep the Senate? You'll probably want to look at an election map while reading this. Here: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=senate+races+2020. Use the buttons at the top to switch between Presidential and Senate races. Can you see the states that had senate races? Can you see the states that did not have senate races? The states where voting irregularities were alleged to have occurred did not have Senate races. Does that blow your mind or what?

 

 

 

[Negatory]

Guys, isn’t it the libs’ job to be triggered?

[gearhog]

2 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Guys, isn’t it the libs’ job to be triggered?

Bye, I guess.

[DosXX]

19 hours ago, torqued said:

I believe you're saying evidence of fraud is... a court case that alleges fraud.

Not sure if intentional or not but you forgot to add the most important second part. He would disagree that a court case alone is evidence of fraud.

19 hours ago, Pooter said:

A court case that actually alleges fraud, which is then successfully prosecuted to completion.

The heritage foundation, one of the most reputable conservative think thanks, has a running list of successfully prosecuted fraud cases with sources. Running tally is at roughly 1000 across the country. These are examples of fraud everyone here would agree with, that should be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible. They are isolated instances that don't change the outcome, with no evidence of systemic conspiracy to change the results, though of course we should remain open to that possibility. The Trump team is undermining democratic process by claiming a priori that there is systemic fraud and that he won in a landslide. Take it to the courts, win your case, and then say it was a fraudulent election.

https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

Does this answer your question @torqued? If you want more specifics I can pick out some random ones out from in there.

[Prosuper]

I figure they spent 4 years going Russia,Russia, Russia plus an impeachment , wouldn't it be fair to give them 3 weeks looking for voter fraud. Get used to perpetual war again Gents.

[gearhog]

 

Nevada Secretary of State homepage says the Cumulative Election Turnout was 1,327,394 ballots.

https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showdocument?id=9054

Nevada Secretary of State also says 1,406,006 ballots were cast for President.

https://silverstateelection.nv.gov/USPresidential/#race1

Biden leads by 33,000 votes.

Is Trump raising doubts about the electoral process, or is Nevada?

 

 

Edited November 21, 2020 by torqued

[Guardian]

Guys, isn’t it the libs’ job to be triggered?

What’s your point? Is that why you’re triggered? It doesn’t appear torqued is triggered. You just can’t seem to answer and deflect or change the topic! Good job. That is very inherently the democrat way!!!!

[DosXX]

9 minutes ago, torqued said:

 

Nevada Secretary of State homepage says the Cumulative Election Turnout for the election was 1,327,394 ballots.

https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showdocument?id=9054

Nevada Secretary of State also says 1,406,006 ballots were cast for President.

https://silverstateelection.nv.gov/USPresidential/#race1

Biden leads by 33,000 votes.

 

 

There were 1,241,000 on the last update before the absentee ballots were counted after Nov 10 at 7:00pm.

The secretary of state has not updated those numbers since Nov 10 at 3:37 pm according to your link, so the missing absentee ballots explains the discrepancy. The silver state election source you posted is cumulative votes until today, not Nov 10. Match the dates either way and you won't find a discrepancy.

 

[gearhog]

15 minutes ago, DosXX said:

Not sure if intentional or not but you forgot to add the most important second part. He would disagree that a court case alone is evidence of fraud.

The heritage foundation, one of the most reputable conservative think thanks, has a running list of successfully prosecuted fraud cases with sources. Running tally is at roughly 1000 across the country. These are examples of fraud everyone here would agree with, that should be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible. They are isolated instances that don't change the outcome, with no evidence of systemic conspiracy to change the results, though of course we should remain open to that possibility. The Trump team is undermining democratic process by claiming a priori that there is systemic fraud and that he won in a landslide. Take it to the courts, win your case, and then say it was a fraudulent election.

https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

Does this answer your question @torqued? If you want more specifics I can pick out some random ones out from in there.

Nice work! I googled "examples of election fraud" two days ago and that was the website I was using when I asked my question. You're the first of five people to actually look it up. And yes, it does answer my question. I didn't count, but there are at least a dozen different ways fraud can be committed by an individual.

Bear with me: Would you say that, generally speaking, crimes do not occur outside of those that are convicted?

 

 

[gearhog]

3 minutes ago, DosXX said:

There were 1,241,000 on the last update before the absentee ballots were counted after Nov 10 at 7:00pm.

The secretary of state has not updated those numbers since Nov 10 at 3:37 pm according to your link, so the missing absentee ballots explains the discrepancy. The silver state election source you posted is cumulative votes until today, not Nov 10. Match the dates either way and you won't find a discrepancy.

 

That's entirely possible. Honest question: When can the state of Nevada start and stop tabulating votes? I don't know.

[Kiloalpha]

2 hours ago, slackline said:

Hidden Brain podcast episode from Oct 26 is a fascinating listen. Super interesting. Says the bigger problem and divide in the US isn't so much between Rs and Ds, but people who love to talk about politics and those that don't. Point taken, I'm backing out of this world for a while. Gotta stop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Super interesting podcast, thanks for mentioning it.

When I was working in politics, I saw people catch party fever all the time. You know it when you see it... the whole "My (insert party) does everything right and they do everything wrong" complex. I fell into it a bit during my first political job, but saw through the charade by the end. Probably because I love playing devil's advocate, even among people I agree with.

When possible, I'd pull junior folks aside and ask for five things the other side believes that they can respect, even if they disagree. Blank stares always came in response. Some would stammer out a few, and almost none could name five. My favorite was when someone tried to say that I wasn't "loyal" or a "true" member of the party. Like its a fucking religion.

If you can't respect your adversary in war/politics/life, then you're overestimating your abilities and underestimating theirs. A great way to die/lose/fail.

[gearhog]

Here's a fun one. Nothing is mentioned about party affiliation, Trump, or Biden. Perhaps it's a hoax.

What is the probability there be shenanigans? Is it low, or is it zero?

https://twitter.com/i/status/1329720449127780354

 

Edited November 21, 2020 by torqued

[Kiloalpha]

1 minute ago, torqued said:

Here's a fun one. Nothing is mentioned about party affiliation, Trump, or Biden. Perhaps it's a hoax.

What is the probability there be shenanigans? Is it low, or is it zero?

https://https://twitter.com/i/status/1329720449127780354twitter.com/local_aperture/status/1329720449127780354?s=2

I think the question isn’t if shenanigans took place. It’s if enough took place to overturn the election. We’re still waiting on that info.

Interesting video if true though.

[DosXX]

5 minutes ago, torqued said:

Bear with me: Would you say that, generally speaking, crimes do not occur outside of those that are convicted?

No they for sure happen outside. For corporate fraud about half of cases go undetected according to a source I found, not sure what the rate would be for election fraud if you have any sources for what that could be. The important thing to note is that it would go in both ways, so even in the extreme case it was only 1% of real election fraud cases get convictions it would not be enough to flip any states. 

Let's do a best case scenario for trump using a 1% detection/conviction rate and the 1000 number from heritage foundation. 

NV: 3,000,000/328,000,000=x/1000

x= 9 expected fraud convicted in NV, which is about what they have on the site. Now dividing by .01 we get 900 expected fraudulent votes based on a 1% detection rate.  They would need a .02% detection rate for Trump to catch up, and that's assuming all fraudulent votes are against Trump.

PN: 2000 fraudulent cases with 1% detection

MI: 1600 ... ""

GA: 1500 ... ""

WI: 980 ... ""

[DosXX]

1 hour ago, torqued said:

Here's a fun one. Nothing is mentioned about party affiliation, Trump, or Biden. Perhaps it's a hoax.

What is the probability there be shenanigans? Is it low, or is it zero?

https://twitter.com/i/status/1329720449127780354

 

It's never zero, but it is very low.

If you look around the 7 second mark of this video you linked for the first row (name is Adams in that row) you can see it has a ballot return date on it on his data source. I found the data source from the PA gov website from Nov 13 and it does not have a return date on this row, or on many other rows in the first page. Seems like the data was faked in this twitter video. I'm using the web archive of the official gov website he says he used so not sure what other explanation there could be for his excel sheet not reflecting the same data.

https://web.archive.org/web/20201113013037/https://data.pa.gov/Government-Efficiency-Citizen-Engagement/2020-General-Election-Mail-Ballot-Requests-Departm/mcba-yywm/data

Additionally, even if it were true that all these suspiciously dated ballots were for Biden, it would not be enough to make up the deficit in PA. Certainly not saying that's not enough of a reason to look into this as a fraud case if it were true, but this video is not very convincing.

 

Edited November 21, 2020 by DosXX
added screenshots

[DosXX]

1 hour ago, torqued said:

That's entirely possible. Honest question: When can the state of Nevada start and stop tabulating votes? I don't know.

The deadline to receive absentee ballots in NV is Nov 10 at 7:00pm, but they must be postmarked by election day. They start counting on Oct 19. They stop counting when all legal votes received before the deadline are counted.

[Lord Ratner]

5 hours ago, slackline said:

Hidden Brain podcast episode from Oct 26 is a fascinating listen. Super interesting. Says the bigger problem and divide in the US isn't so much between Rs and Ds, but people who love to talk about politics and those that don't. Point taken, I'm backing out of this world for a while. Gotta stop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll check that one out, thanks. 

[17D_guy]

7 hours ago, DosXX said:

It's never zero, but it is very low.

If you look around the 7 second mark of this video you linked for the first row (name is Adams in that row) you can see it has a ballot return date on it on his data source. I found the data source from the PA gov website from Nov 13 and it does not have a return date on this row, or on many other rows in the first page. Seems like the data was faked in this twitter video. I'm using the web archive of the official gov website he says he used so not sure what other explanation there could be for his excel sheet not reflecting the same data.

https://web.archive.org/web/20201113013037/https://data.pa.gov/Government-Efficiency-Citizen-Engagement/2020-General-Election-Mail-Ballot-Requests-Departm/mcba-yywm/data

Additionally, even if it were true that all these suspiciously dated ballots were for Biden, it would not be enough to make up the deficit in PA. Certainly not saying that's not enough of a reason to look into this as a fraud case if it were true, but this video is not very convincing.

Not sure why educated people here are still taking TikTok videos shared on anonymous twitter handles over what the President's own lawyers are putting forward in court.  We had 4 years of the admin screaming fake news, but this is what the Republicans are going to line up behind?  🤨

It's like arguing with anti-vaxers.  "Here's all the evidence showing it doesn't cause autism, poison you, etc."
"We'll, @real_doc_189432 on Twitter said there's mercury and live virus in the MMR vaccine!  Plus my FaceBook group, "Mom's who actually care about Vax" just had a post about someone's who's twins died due to the flu shot."

Also, here's a pretty good bot detector for twitter.  It's not perfect, nothing is (including voting machines, or F22's), but it'll provide you with more information about where some of you might be getting informed. https://botometer.osome.iu.edu/

Ben Shapiro's podcast goes over the latest lawsuit nonsense.  Dude is right with the facts as usual...and guess what, Trump's latest nonsense lawsuit - tossed out         (here's the ruling). 

Of course the failure that is Guiliani goes right to "Obama appointed judge" not have any facts that Judge Brann - "He also spent years as a Republican Party official in Pennsylvania and was active in the Federalist Society and National Rifle Association."

Welcome Pres-Elect Biden?  We'll see what happens in the Senate in GA, I'm guessing they're both elected as Republicans because that's how the election has gone everywhere else: reject the chaos that is Trump, reject the Democrats as a party.

Edited November 22, 2020 by 17D_guy
Add actual ruling.

[Lord Ratner]

10 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

Not sure why educated people here are still taking TikTok videos shared on anonymous twitter handles over what the President's own lawyers are putting forward in court.  We had 4 years of the admin screaming fake news, but this is what the Republicans are going to line up behind?  🤨

It's like arguing with anti-vaxers.  "Here's all the evidence showing it doesn't cause autism, poison you, etc."
"We'll, @real_doc_189432 on Twitter said there's mercury and live virus in the MMR vaccine!  Plus my FaceBook group, "Mom's who actually care about Vax" just had a post about someone's who's twins died due to the flu shot."

Also, here's a pretty good bot detector for twitter.  It's not perfect, nothing is (including voting machines, or F22's), but it'll provide you with more information about where some of you might be getting informed. https://botometer.osome.iu.edu/

Ben Shapiro's podcast goes over the latest lawsuit nonsense.  Dude is right with the facts as usual...and guess what, Trump's latest nonsense lawsuit - tossed out         (here's the ruling). 

Of course the failure that is Guiliani goes right to "Obama appointed judge" not have any facts that Judge Brann - "He also spent years as a Republican Party official in Pennsylvania and was active in the Federalist Society and National Rifle Association."

Welcome Pres-Elect Biden?  We'll see what happens in the Senate in GA, I'm guessing they're both elected as Republicans because that's how the election has gone everywhere else: reject the chaos that is Trump, reject the Democrats as a party.

Shapiro is the most honest conservative in the media, hands down.

 

This is the primary problem with politics now, and it's probably due to the lack of a third (and fourth, and fifth...) party. Way too many Americans view their party as a team. And you don't stop rooting for your team just because a player fucks up. You also don't give the other team credit over your own. 

 

I don't see an end in sight in the short term, but we probably need to get away from the idea that a voter has a party affiliation. Why? You vote for whoever represents your interests best during that election cycle. Political parties are for the politicians. Convincing we-the-people that we are in the party as well is a cynical way of protecting votes without having to keep promises or follow through. 

 

Trump is one of the most successful presidents on a policy and effects basis in decades. He's also a miserable piece of shit who makes up for his wild inadequacies by being a delegation savant. He lost because of shitty luck. Who expects a pandemic? But he still lost.

Edited November 22, 2020 by Lord Ratner

[gearhog]

11 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

Not sure why educated people here are still taking TikTok videos shared on anonymous twitter handles over what the President's own lawyers are putting forward in court.  We had 4 years of the admin screaming fake news, but this is what the Republicans are going to line up behind?  🤨

It's like arguing with anti-vaxers.  "Here's all the evidence showing it doesn't cause autism, poison you, etc."
"We'll, @real_doc_189432 on Twitter said there's mercury and live virus in the MMR vaccine!  Plus my FaceBook group, "Mom's who actually care about Vax" just had a post about someone's who's twins died due to the flu shot."

Also, here's a pretty good bot detector for twitter.  It's not perfect, nothing is (including voting machines, or F22's), but it'll provide you with more information about where some of you might be getting informed. https://botometer.osome.iu.edu/

Ben Shapiro's podcast goes over the latest lawsuit nonsense.  Dude is right with the facts as usual...and guess what, Trump's latest nonsense lawsuit - tossed out         (here's the ruling). 

Of course the failure that is Guiliani goes right to "Obama appointed judge" not have any facts that Judge Brann - "He also spent years as a Republican Party official in Pennsylvania and was active in the Federalist Society and National Rifle Association."

Welcome Pres-Elect Biden?  We'll see what happens in the Senate in GA, I'm guessing they're both elected as Republicans because that's how the election has gone everywhere else: reject the chaos that is Trump, reject the Democrats as a party.

To be fair, I said it was just a fun example. I didn't advocate for or question it's authenticity. I didn't prioritize it over any claim, evidence, or other assertion. It popped up on my Twitter feed, I knew it would be controversial, and I posted it. You made the giant leap in saying this is what Republicans are lining up behind. That seems a bit of a stretch. Then you proceed to say it's like arguing with anti-vaxxers and talk about your Mom's facebook feed or something. You lost me there.

What I did ask, was what is the probability there is anything to this. DosXX did a great job in substantiating his rebuttal. I certainly wasn't going to download the data. But he did, and he said in this case the probability was low, but not zero. I think he's right. Are you saying it's zero? Are you willing to acknowledge that fraud most likely occurred in this election? If so, what types of fraud?

Given our discussion, here's where we are. Correct me if I'm overstating any of this.

1. Everyone here believes election fraud exists.

2. There are at least a few dozen ways an individual can commit fraud with physical ballots. Buying votes, voting multiple times, postmarking ballots improperly, pollsters completing ballots, throwing out ballots, improperly scanning ballots, failing to verify voter information, etc, etc, etc.

3. More election fraud exists than that which is prosecuted. DosXX speculates 100 times more fraud could exist than convictions, but not sure what that's based on.

4. We're not debating whether or not it exists. You believe the probability is low. I believe the probability isn't known, and could be low or high.

So why am I wasting my time here? I just like arguing on this forum. 😄 But seriously,  can we not also agree that election integrity is one of the fundamental bedrocks on which our Democracy is built? Call me idealistic, but I'd like 100% security. However, given that you will dismiss any allegation of fraud, you seem perfectly willing to accept an amount. More if suits your biases. Less if it does not. Remember 2016 when the Russians hacked our election? Do you remember what your feelings/beliefs were then?

EDIT: I skimmed through the Cyber Thread and you had some pretty interesting things to say regarding our adversaries accessing classified government systems, hacking, malmare, and the like. Fascinating stuff. I'm not smart on that subject, but it seems their level of sophistication and determination to cause harm in the cyber domain is pretty high. Given your expertise, how would you assess the vulnerability to attack of, say..... a single electronic voting machine in a high school cafeteria in downtown Philly?

Edited November 22, 2020 by torqued

[DosXX]

31 minutes ago, torqued said:

DosXX speculates 100 times more fraud could exist than convictions, but not sure what that's based on.

To be clear I'd wager it's much less, those fraud numbers were an estimation of what the upper limit could be with the data we have. Worth noting those heritage cases are from throughout past few decades, not a single election year so I was generous in that assumption as well. I was steel manning the argument to show why it would not be anywhere near enough to change the outcome of election and justify a delay of certification. 

56 minutes ago, torqued said:

4. We're not debating whether or not it exists. You believe the probability is low. I believe the probability isn't known, and could be low or high.

Trying to get you to 5. The amount required for the Trump team to claim it was a landslide victory is eroding trust in the democratic process and the rhetoric is damaging. There is no evidence currently to justify a delay of certification, even if we agree to fully prosecute cases of fraud as they appear. If this was 2000 then that would be a different conversation to have.

45 minutes ago, torqued said:

Call me idealistic, but I'd like 100% security. However, given that you will dismiss any allegation of fraud, you seem perfectly willing to accept an amount.

Same logic as thinking we should ban assault rifles, or register guns, and continue to pass restrictive legislation until we get 100% gun safety. In the same way we run the risk of eroding 2nd amendment with some measures that could potentially prevent a shooting, we run the risk of eroding 24th amendment or disenfranchising voters with some of the measures that would get us closer to 100% security, and it will never happen in either case.