Election 2020 - Page 413 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Pants-of-dog
#15138761
Finfinder wrote:That’s like asking the foxes if they stole chickens from the henhouse. Irrelevant and absolutely no proof.


So you are arguing that the election officials refused to follow the orders given by Alito and the people running the election.

This is a crime.

Do you have any evidence for this crime?

Furthermore they had to be ordered to do it and is evidence in itself that they do not have the propensity to do the right thing. That is a hundred percent your argument. We should just simply take their word for it, but not verify.


No. I already posted evidence showing that the Pennsylvania election officials started segregating ballots even before Alito told them to, just in case.

Pretty much every part of your posts are incorrect as I pointed out in detail many many times and yet you keep promoting the same propaganda over and over again despite the massive amount of circumstantial evidence that’s been offered.

You have painted yourself in a corner with hyperbole and not allowed room to intellectually advance your claims. Since election night, there was no widespread fraud. Apparently you support fraud because you admit it exists but don’t want it investigated.


Provide an example of where I have been wrong.
By Doug64
#15138762
And even as it certifies the results of the last election (while pointing out that Trump is within his rights to ask for another recount), Georgia fires the first salvo in the fight to protect the integrity of the next election. From Georgia officials certify election results showing Biden win:

[Secretary of State] Raffensperger said Friday that he plans to propose legislative changes aimed at increasing trust in the results, including allowing state officials to intervene in counties that have systemic problems in administering elections, requiring photo ID for absentee voting and adding stricter controls to allow for challenges to voters who might not live where they say.

“These measures will improve the security of our elections, and that should lead to greater public trust,” he said.

[Governor] Kemp said he also looked forward to working with lawmakers to address election concerns.


And since in Georgia the Republicans control both houses of the legislature and the governorship, they are likely to get what they want.
By Pants-of-dog
#15138764
@annatar1914

You said:

annatar1914 wrote:@Pants-of-dog

That's what you say. Others say differently. No doubt the courts will have to decide, ultimately the Supreme Court i'm sure.


Let me put this way:

I have seen no evidence of widespread fraud.

You have not presented any evidence of widespread fraud.

No other Trump supporter has provided any evidence of widespread fraud.

Trump has not presented evidence of widespread fraud.

His lawyers have not provided evidence of widespread fraud.

In fact, not a single person in the world has presented evidence of widespread fraud.

People can say differently, but those are the facts.

@annatar1914

You said:

It's not only possible but likely the lower courts made errors, before the election even, and this should all go to the Supreme Court in any case.


Present evidence of an error by the lower courts.

_______________

@Doug64

Stacey Abrams will almost certainly familiarise herself with any changes in rules and do her best to make sure 800,000 voters or so still manage to vote.

And get those Senate seats.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15138771
I think @Doug64 wants a 1 party state.

Basically, he wants to rig the system so that Republicans always win, but still keep the democrats around so that they can "compete" and say "look, there's another party!", but really, it's just a one party state.

Kind of like how the Harlem Globe Trotters have the Washington Generals.

Basically, Doug wants to live in CHina.
User avatar
By Fasces
#15138773
GOP in 2018: Trump cannot be indicted and judged by the courts. Your remedy is impeachment.

GOP in 2019: Trump cannot be impeached. Your remedy is voting.

GOP in 2020: Trump cannot be voted out. See you in court.
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15138777
@Pants-of-dog

I'm ignoring your value-free narrative frame, and bringing the conversation back to concrete reality.

Bottom line is that this will, and should, be presented to the Supreme Court for resolution, even if it casts the election into a ''Contingent Election'' scenario. Biden will not seriously want a cloud of illegitimacy over his head if he prevails, and likewise Trump and his voters if there was any illegal activity. This contesting of the election is not a challenge to the republic per se, but the system still works with such things happening from time to time. My suspicion is that you could care less about matters like Constitutionality or legality in this or any election, but seeing those you want to see win, win.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15138781
If you want the "bottom-line", @annatar1914, then it is that Trump made a claim before the election that he would not accept the results if he lost. He then called it fraudulent and now his cultists are buying this narrative despite there being absolutely no evidence of fraud on even a small level.


No evidence. That's the bottom-line.

This has nothing to do with how constitutional anything is. It's all about soothing the ego of an idiot.
By Finfinder
#15138782
Pants-of-dog wrote:So you are arguing that the election officials refused to follow the orders given by Alito and the people running the election.

This is a crime.

Do you have any evidence for this crime?



No. I already posted evidence showing that the Pennsylvania election officials started segregating ballots even before Alito told them to, just in case.



Provide an example of where I have been wrong.


Yes ! This article proves two of your points are a fallacy. The first being that observers were allowed to properly monitor the vote counting, the second being there’s no way to confirm if votes were put aside when observers we’re NOT allowed proper observation. Of course you’ve had access to the same types of articles all along but refuse to acknowledge them because they debunk your propaganda. This gets very tiring with you. The rest of it I’ve gone over with you at least three or four times already.

Philadelphia Election Center Refuses to Let Trump Officials Watch Vote Counting Despite Court Order

Chaos is currently ensuing in the city of Philadelphia, where the election headquarters is refusing to allow Trump campaign officials to watch the vote counting process despite a court order from a state court permitting them to be 6 feet away from election workers tabulating the votes in order to monitor potential fraud.

https://www.lifenews.com/2020/11/05/phi ... urt-order/
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15138785
Godstud wrote:If you want the "bottom-line", @annatar1914, then it is that Trump made a claim before the election that he would not accept the results if he lost. He then called it fraudulent and now his cultists are buying this narrative despite there being absolutely no evidence of fraud on even a small level.


No evidence. That's the bottom-line.

This has nothing to do with how constitutional anything is. It's all about soothing the ego of an idiot.


@Godstud , maybe, maybe not, it is probable that whatever case there is, has not leaked out to the media in it's details at least.

It will come down to whatever evidence they present in court, or the lack thereof of evidence. It really doesn't matter where the personal inspiration for this comes from, I imagine that the system will manage to handle it one way or another just fine. I insist that whatever the facts are on the ground concerning this election, it will have to be handled this way in any case, for the common good. People need a good collective civics lesson every now and then. And both political factions will see that taking to this point and beyond is not really a bad thing legitimacy-wise.
By Doug64
#15138787
Rancid wrote:I think @Doug64 wants a 1 party state.

Basically, he wants to rig the system so that Republicans always win, but still keep the democrats around so that they can "compete" and say "look, there's another party!", but really, it's just a one party state.

Kind of like how the Harlem Globe Trotters have the Washington Generals.

Basically, Doug wants to live in CHina.

Why is it that Democrats think their voters are too incompetent to follow common sense laws protecting the integrity of the vote? In this case Georgia already requires a photo ID to vote in person, they're just talking about extending that to mail-in ballots. But apparently providing a photocopy of a photo ID with the ballot is too hard.
#15138789
^Photo ID has always been about suppressing the vote, not preserving the integrity of the vote. The Trump campaign has so far failed to provide proof of voter fraud, much less massive voter fraud, so this is all just bargaining stage bullshit as you make your way through the stages of loss. There is simply no level of voter fraud that has ever been proven that even warrants the need for voter ID laws.

I doubt the SCOTUS is going to even take up any of these cases at this point. In order for Trump to win cases from multiple states would have to be brought forth, all of which were laughably stupid, and SCOTUS would have to drag Trump's bloated corpse across the finish line.

Roberts is too concerned about his legacy and preserving the legitimacy of the court to do that, and even the chuddiest judges know these cases are shit and they would be turning over a clear Biden win. All in order to keep Trump in power, so that he can serve his agenda (which is promoting himself) over the GOP's agenda.
By Finfinder
#15138794
Rancid wrote:I think @Doug64 wants a 1 party state.

Basically, he wants to rig the system so that Republicans always win, but still keep the democrats around so that they can "compete" and say "look, there's another party!", but really, it's just a one party state.

Kind of like how the Harlem Globe Trotters have the Washington Generals.

Basically, Doug wants to live in CHina.


I don’t know what the left is complaining about. If anything is proven with this election, is that it is basically by popular vote, when there’s 3500 counties in the country and you only have to win roughly 500 /14% of them. It’s a wonder the Democrats have ever lost an election. Or is that just not possible without funny business.
User avatar
By Fasces
#15138795
Doug64 wrote:Why is it that Democrats think their voters are too incompetent to follow common sense laws protecting the integrity of the vote? In this case Georgia already requires a photo ID to vote in person, they're just talking about extending that to mail-in ballots. But apparently providing a photocopy of a photo ID with the ballot is too hard.


Democrats supported a National ID program to replace the use of SS cards through the 2000s-2010s to GOP opposition, and they generally have no problem with requiring voter ID if two simple things are done:

1: It is free, so that it doesn't constitute a poll tax.

2: It is mailed to the address of the registered voter or at least to the nearest post office (in case of homeless individuals), so as to not constitute a poll tax on the poor by requiring them to take time off work to go to the DMV or other registers office and waste potentially hours of their time.

The real question is why the GOP wants to require additional ID but not make the effort to provide that ID to all possible voters. :roll: Maybe its because their claims of voter fraud are disingenuous and the real aim is to disenfranchise the most marginalized sections of the population.
By Finfinder
#15138796
annatar1914 wrote:@Pants-of-dog

I'm ignoring your value-free narrative frame, and bringing the conversation back to concrete reality.

Bottom line is that this will, and should, be presented to the Supreme Court for resolution, even if it casts the election into a ''Contingent Election'' scenario. Biden will not seriously want a cloud of illegitimacy over his head if he prevails, and likewise Trump and his voters if there was any illegal activity. This contesting of the election is not a challenge to the republic per se, but the system still works with such things happening from time to time. My suspicion is that you could care less about matters like Constitutionality or legality in this or any election, but seeing those you want to see win, win.


It should be presented to the Supreme Court on the general fairness and legality of massive mail in voting which obviously is subject to fraud but also gives an unfair advantage to heavily populated Democrat cities. Trump saw this coming and the Democrats were salivating at the opportunity.
Last edited by Finfinder on 22 Nov 2020 03:30, edited 1 time in total.
By Finfinder
#15138798
Fasces wrote:Imagine considering 1 man 1 vote an unfair advantage. :roll:


Imagine Democrat cities having rallies which include ballots that are already filled out. They’ll even pick you up and feed you a steak dinner all you have to do is sign your name and then you can vote again on election say. Of course they’ll have the software now to know if they’re ahead or behind before election day and how many votes they need to make up.
Last edited by Finfinder on 22 Nov 2020 03:36, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Fasces
#15138799
Finfinder wrote:Imagine Democrat cities having rallies which include ballots that can be filled out on the spot


What's wrong with that? Seems very convenient and its still 1 man 1 vote.

and then you can vote again on election say


Show the evidence that this occurred. :lol:
By Finfinder
#15138801
Fasces wrote:What's wrong with that? Seems very convenient and its still 1 man 1 vote.



Show the evidence that this occurred. :lol:


Sure you can put 50 people on a bus or a train but that’s not the same in rural America now is it.
By Pants-of-dog
#15138802
annatar1914 wrote:@Pants-of-dog

I'm ignoring your value-free narrative frame, and bringing the conversation back to concrete reality.


@annatar1914

This made me laugh out loud.

It is concrete reality that there has been no evidence presented to support the claim of widespread fraud.

It is also concrete reality that this should not go to the SCOTUS as long as there is no evidence that the lower courts made an error.

Bottom line is that this will, and should, be presented to the Supreme Court for resolution, even if it casts the election into a ''Contingent Election'' scenario. Biden will not seriously want a cloud of illegitimacy over his head if he prevails, and likewise Trump and his voters if there was any illegal activity. This contesting of the election is not a challenge to the republic per se, but the system still works with such things happening from time to time.


No, it should not be presented to the SCOTUS if the lower courts have made no errors.

Trump does not get to take it to the SCOTUS just because he does not like what other courts said.

My suspicion is that you could care less about matters like Constitutionality or legality in this or any election, but seeing those you want to see win, win.


And you would be wrong about me. But since this is irrelevant, you are free to believe whatever insulting things you want about me.

______________

Finfinder wrote:Yes ! This article proves two of your points are a fallacy. The first being that observers were allowed to properly monitor the vote counting, the second being there’s no way to confirm if votes were put aside when observers we’re NOT allowed proper observation. Of course you’ve had access to the same types of articles all along but refuse to acknowledge them because they debunk your propaganda. This gets very tiring with you. The rest of it I’ve gone over with you at least three or four times already.

Philadelphia Election Center Refuses to Let Trump Officials Watch Vote Counting Despite Court Order

Chaos is currently ensuing in the city of Philadelphia, where the election headquarters is refusing to allow Trump campaign officials to watch the vote counting process despite a court order from a state court permitting them to be 6 feet away from election workers tabulating the votes in order to monitor potential fraud.

https://www.lifenews.com/2020/11/05/phi ... urt-order/


This news outlet you use a source is extreme right wing and is known for failing fact checks.

So let us fact check the article:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... e-barred-/


    President Donald Trump wrongly claimed that Republican election observers have been barred from watching ballot counts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, repeating a falsehood that has been contradicted by his own campaign lawyers in court hearings and lawsuits.

    "Nobody wants to report that Pennsylvania and Michigan didn’t allow our Poll Watchers and/or Vote Observers to Watch or Observe," Trump wrote in a Nov. 11 tweet tagged as "disputed" by Twitter. "This is responsible for hundreds of thousands of votes that should not be allowed to count. Therefore, I easily win both states."


    Election observers representing the Republican Party and the Trump campaign have been allowed to observe the ballot-counting process alongside Democratic observers in both Pennsylvania and Michigan, despite the president’s repeated claims to the contrary.

    A Trump campaign attorney conceded in court that the campaign had a "non-zero number" of election observers in Philadelphia. Another federal lawsuit the campaign filed in Michigan includes hundreds of pages of affidavits from people who served as election observers.

    There also remains no evidence of widespread voter fraud that would invalidate "hundreds of thousands of votes" in those states. Independent decision desks for multiple news organizations have called the election for President-elect Joe Biden, who leads Trump by about 52,000 votes in Pennsylvania and 146,000 in Michigan, according to Decision Desk HQ.

    "President Trump’s claims about lack of observers have been tested and continue to be tested in court," said Rick Hasen, a professor of law at the University of California, Irvine. "Importantly, there has been no proof of illegal votes in the election, and no pathway to go from complaints about inadequate access to overturning the results of the election."

    PolitiFact has debunked false claims that GOP observers were denied access in Philadelphia and Detroit. Other fact-checkers who have looked at those cities and their surrounding states have also documented that observers were allowed. Litigation continues in both states as Trump refuses to concede defeat.

    The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

    Pennsylvania
    Trump’s focus in Pennsylvania has been on Philadelphia, where a Nov. 5 judge’s order allowed election observers from both parties to view the ballot-counting process from 6 feet away.

    Philadelphia appealed the order, arguing that the original arrangement let all observers "see the entire set up" in detail. The city said it has complied in the meantime by providing closer access to the observers, who were previously kept farther away due to the coronavirus.

    Republican observers were never blocked from observing entirely, despite Trump’s claim. Under questioning from a federal judge in court, a Trump campaign attorney conceded that the campaign had several representatives monitoring the ballot counting.

    "At all times, the city commissioners, who are a bipartisan organization, have followed the law," said Kevin Feeley, a spokesperson for the city commissioners. Feeley told PolitiFact Nov. 6 that he was "staring at" observers representing both parties in the city’s convention center.

    Ellen Lyon, a spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Department of State, said Pennsylvania more broadly has "had a free, fair and secure election" with "the highest degree of transparency," including livestreams of the process in Philadelphia and other counties.

    "In all counties, all parties have canvass observers throughout the process," Lyon said, pointing to the commonwealth’s guidelines for observers. "Any insinuation otherwise is a lie."

So we can see that Trump campaign had observers in Pennsylvania at all times.

_______________

Doug64 wrote:Why is it that Democrats think their voters are too incompetent to follow common sense laws protecting the integrity of the vote? In this case Georgia already requires a photo ID to vote in person, they're just talking about extending that to mail-in ballots. But apparently providing a photocopy of a photo ID with the ballot is too hard.


I think Democrat voters in Georgia know exactly what they are doing and are not incompetent at all.

They did beat you guys, after all.
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15138806
Finfinder wrote:It should be presented to the Supreme Court on the general fairness and legality of massive mail in voting which obviously is subject to fraud but also gives an unfair advantage to heavily populated Democrat cities. Trump saw this coming and the Democrats were salivating at the opportunity.


@Finfinder , I'll tell you the same thing I'd tell @Pants-of-dog , to prevent civil unrest and worse, for the sake of the rule of law and to remove doubts, I insist that this should go before the Supreme Court, unless President Trump withdraws his contention of the election before the constitutionally allowed time before hand.
  • 1
  • 411
  • 412
  • 413
  • 414
  • 415
  • 438
Election 2020

So you have determined before all the evidence is[…]

Thank you. I see that you are not using the same […]

Qatzel uses words, I use diagrams: philosophical[…]

If people lack the intelligence to put the proper[…]