2020 U.S. Presidential Election

[Peace]

3 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

I live in Florida and experienced the hanging chad fiasco.  As a result, Florida changed many procedures and the machines used.  The system is much more transparent and verifiable.  

Per voting patterns, it only takes a county, a few precincts, to tilt the results in a close race. Fla still had issues with elected supervisors not following the law a few years ago.  That was addressed for this year.  

It’s always a battle to balance voter suppression with vote security.  It’s not a fundamentally partisan issue unless one side sees an advantage to be gained.   

At the least, it validates the winner and gives guidance to correct issues.   Already there is talk about submitting a bill for standardization of certain protocols to ensure transparency and validation.  

Hey I am all for recounts. In fact, since fraud and mistakes can occur during the recount, let's recount the recount. And after we recount the recount, we can recount the recount of the recount of the vote.

At some point recounts are no longer warranted (such where one party has a 40,000 vote lead, for example).

All this time and effort is spent on the recount, and they find a difference of 12 votes.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Peace

[Didacus]

What if as a compromise l, Joe becomes president and he agrees to take Trump as VP?

Could that work?

[Didacus]

A case against Biden by following the math:

https://notthebee.com/article/watch-a-statistical-case-against-a-biden-win-in-less-than-6-minutes?fbclid=IwAR3JFNmKbycCwJ4qVRz3ZiNDqfnzboV401vw7peczBQhqh5Tgh-2qFrg9yQ

[Peace]

On 11/10/2020 at 1:55 PM, Didacus said:

D.Trump would NEVER cheat!

The Don is a man of honor, above all other things.

[Aloysius]

15 hours ago, Didacus said:

What if as a compromise l, Joe becomes president and he agrees to take Trump as VP?

Could that work?

the funny thing is, as I understand it, the only thing that would happen if the certification of the electoral vote somehow was jammed up by objections in congress would be President Trump with Vice President Joe Biden (the House would have to pick the president, but each state delegation gets only 1 vote so Republicans have majorities of more state delegations and would win there; then the senate picks the VP out of the two electoral top vote winners but since I imagine they can't make Trump his own VP they'd have to pick Joe Biden lol)

as far as the court cases, I expect trump will only be able to prove the smoke, not the fire.  so worst of both worlds because then we'll just have half the country upset because they assume the smoke came from a fire; but if you look at opinion polls of whether people thought Trump was legitimately elected or even W Bush in 2000, we've had half the country regard the president as illegitimate before; in fact, it's becoming a new American tradition, it seems.

@Peace, I noticed earlier you suggested it's as easy to cheat in rural counties as in cities; I actually think that's not true.  there's a reason for the stereotype of republicans attempting to suppress votes in areas they won't win and democrats attempting to stuff extra ballots in (sure they each do a little of the other, but their expertise lies in one or the other lol)--it's much easier to have a small targeted ballot stuff in a high density population area than to coordinate something across many more sparsely populated areas.  And if you don't coordinate that, then any ballot stuffing you do still has to be really rather insignificant or else it's too obvious because of the smaller population of such places.  cities are definitely easier places to get extra votes stuffed in amounts that would have any impact at all, be harder to prove and easier not to get caught, widespread coordinated cheating is difficult and could be much more easily caught; targeted cheating is much more plausible.

Anyway, I'm just talking about the plausibility of the story.  Whether it's true or not is just conjecture--there are suspicious things out there IMO, but no smoking gun I've seen yet.  And I think the courts are inclined to hide from smoking guns unless it's impossible to avoid them, for the sake of the country's stability.  But we now have a candidate who won't let it drop for the sake of stability, so we'll see what happens.

[Peace]

8 hours ago, Aloysius said:

@Peace, I noticed earlier you suggested it's as easy to cheat in rural counties as in cities; I actually think that's not true.  there's a reason for the stereotype of republicans attempting to suppress votes in areas they won't win and democrats attempting to stuff extra ballots in (sure they each do a little of the other, but their expertise lies in one or the other lol)--it's much easier to have a small targeted ballot stuff in a high density population area than to coordinate something across many more sparsely populated areas.  And if you don't coordinate that, then any ballot stuffing you do still has to be really rather insignificant or else it's too obvious because of the smaller population of such places.  cities are definitely easier places to get extra votes stuffed in amounts that would have any impact at all, be harder to prove and easier not to get caught, widespread coordinated cheating is difficult and could be much more easily caught; targeted cheating is much more plausible.

I don't think there needs to be any type of coordination among the various red areas. Nettie from Nazareth throws in an extra 300. Ace from Altoona throws in 250. They don't need to have to know about the activity of the other for the votes to add up. Sure, in the Dem areas you have high volume, but you also have hella more surveillance too. Look, in Philly you could watch the whole darn thing live-stream on the internet. Do they even know what video is in these red areas?

[Didacus]

Found this interesting little site.  They are still projecting a Trump win!!??

https://everylegalvote.com/country?fbclid=IwAR1SsCZ-lmyCImKIDdOAVGbjl0AuH5_-rORrACJLMjt0qlzXQnE691jCtSQ

 

[Aloysius]

@Peace, that kind of widespread uncoordinated fraud probably happens, but I find it less plausible for it to be in numbers that would be significant than I find it to be a plausible story that within a city a precisely targeted ballot stuff could take place.  I do believe there's a reason for the stereotype of democrats cheating by ballot stuffing and republicans cheating by voter suppression.  As far as the observation issue--I think they definitely broke the poll-watcher system this time around--poll watchers seemed to be kept so far away as to not really be effective in any way to check if ballots were being checked for proper identities being on them (ie addresses, signatures, etc), so the openness of a city counting place vs a possible closedness of a rural place seems moot (though I've seen rural places too, they tend to also be in big open spaces that are relatively transparent from what I've seen, rural areas aren't just people counting ballots in barns lol, they have school gymnasiums and libraries and stuff too that they usually use I think lol).  There are for sure corrupt counties out there--the thing is if it's a single corrupt rural county it's probably insignificant even when it's a close election, but only one corrupt urban county and you could really swing something if things are close.

take anything based on an anonymous source with a grain of salt of course, but this article from the NY Post is interesting and backs up my thought of there being these kind of coordinated efforts within cities (the Post says it confirmed the guy had worked polls the whole time he claimed to have done so, doesn't prove it's true but it is a confession of someone who would have had opportunity) https://nypost.com/2020/08/29/political-insider-explains-voter-fraud-with-mail-in-ballots/

As far as one thing that makes this one feel fishy--well there's the tell-tale signs for international election observers in Africa-- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-37243190--#6 about late reporting of votes is what makes this one feel fishy to many ppl.  Results in democratic run cities were not reported until way after any possible nefarious actors would have had ample motive, means, and opportunity to know how much of a gap needed to be filled.  NOW--there is a logical explanation in terms of the mail-in votes and state laws in places like WI that required them to wait to count those after in person votes--so just because it feels fishy doesn't necessarily mean that it is.  But it doesn't make anyone who's suspicious just some nutty conspiracy loon when, under normal circumstances, that kind of delay is considered a tell-tale sign.  If the Trump legal team can provide evidence of votes having been counted after poll watchers were told to go home, which seems to be one of their allegations, well then that would be really suspicious.  But courts definitely are going to have a high standard to see that evidence, even just the affidavits they have been collecting from various poll watchers probably might not  be enough for the courts because they will prefer people maintain faith in the system.  (and also because the affidavits seem to be a mixed bag--some are from poll watchers who were denied entry to places because the place already had an equal number of both sides in so by rule they weren't allowed in to tip the balance, but some affidavits do seem to indicate the possibility of tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of votes having been counted without any campaign poll watchers present in the early morning hours after the media had told ppl the count would be stopped until the next day.  if any of those claims are true (and they might not be, people are incentivized to lie and I'm sure plenty of partisans out there would even risk perjury to do so right now), that would be a major thing.

but even IF it were true, the courts won't want it to be true because that would be the biggest blow to the public's faith in the electoral process since Bush v Gore, so don't hold your breath for it to actually change the results.

If Trump's a madman enough to try to tie this up in litigation to force a 12th amendment pick by the house and senate, though, well then we're all in trouble lol.  But I have a feeling even with his own supreme court picks, the USSC will shut him down tell the states to stop all their recounts before the safe harbor date if it gets that far and the EC will vote as normal, and not enough senators/congressmen of his own party would be partisan enough to throw out electors in congress (though probably at least one senator would sign onto a challenge and make them debate it this time around I bet)

[Guest]

I keep wondering what if anything is going on behind a potential republican smoke screen and follow developments with interest ... and a prayer.

[Anomaly]

5 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

I keep wondering what if anything is going on behind a potential republican smoke screen and follow developments with interest ... and a prayer.

It’s more than just a smoke screen.   There were irregularities, as well as incompetence (which may or may not have been intentional).  

We have rules and procedures in place to check and recount in certain circumstances.   Technically, the States have not certified the results.   It’s only the media “calling” the race based on likelihood.   The same media that touted polls that said Trump didn’t have a chance.   Then consider that election supervisors all belong to one of the two parties and are elected to office.    

Why did/are some states limiting observations by others, or changed voter laws in the days and weeks right before the election?   Why are more ballots being “found”?

What you’re hearing in Australia is just the what mass media wants to tell you.  They have their own agenda if they support the idea of a more involved and controlling central government in theirs and others countries.   

Trump has his significant personal flaws.  We all hear them constantly in the news.   Despite that constant denigration in the news, there are reasons why half the population still voted for him, including a higher percentage of Latinos and Black minority’s than the first election.  

I don’t think there will be enough proof to declare Trump a winner, but as I’ve seen in Florida, we can identify and correct problems in our voting systems.   What’s wrong with that?

Edited November 13, 2020 by Anomaly

[little2add]

9 hours ago, Anomaly said:

What’s wrong with that?

Nothing!

in fact, half of the US population voted and support pres. trump.  

Good luck to the president elect, whomever that may be.  May the good lord be with you.