Election Aftermath

[Gulo Blue]

did any lawyers present any evidence of things like a lack of signature matching requirements and courts ruling that ballots don't need valid postmarks? Is that a real question?

It's a real question. There was a disconnect between what was said in the non-mainstream press and what lawyers were actually willing to stand behind. Are you aware of any exceptions? Because policies that could arguably leave an opportunity for fraud is not evidence of fraud.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Yeah, because transparency in vote counting is just like those things you've listed. Good job. By the way, those are the things your new party does, not mine.

Not just transparency. Full transparency. You can't drop that qualifier. That's how you load your statement with unspecified nonsense.

 

[Spartanmack]

The amount of votes that were received in Pennsylvania after Election Day were around 10,000. Even if every vote were for Biden and taken away, Biden still would have won.

How many absentee ballots in PA were verified by signature match? Good job.

And how is your 10k number verified?

 

[Spartanmack]

Not just transparency. Full transparency. You can't drop that qualifier. That's how you load your statement with unspecified nonsense.

my bad, I forgot that full transparency makes it much different - partial transparency is enough and full transparency makes it a form of voter suppression. Does that also make it racist?

No, that's not how I load my statement with unspecific nonsense, it's how you read into my statement and/or look for whatever nit you can find to pick. If it helps, full = all ballots counted in the open in the public square where counters can be monitored, not behind closed doors. If you want to say by full I obviously and only meant something like requiring each persons actual votes to be disclosed so we know who voted for whom, then I guess you win the pedantic nitpick contest again. Congrats.

 

[elrod817]

How many absentee ballots in PA were verified by signature match? Good job.

And how is your 10k number verified?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pe...ls-closed-on-election-day.html?outputType=amp

Where?s your proof?

Good job.

 

[Spartanmack]

It's a real question. There was a disconnect between what was said in the non-mainstream press and what lawyers were actually willing to stand behind. Are you aware of any exceptions? Because policies that could arguably leave an opportunity for fraud is not evidence of fraud.

it's a dumb question. Policies that leave an opportunity for fraud should be remedied - we shouldn't wait until we have proof that fraud occured, particularly if those policies make it really easy to commit fraud and extremely difficult to prove it.

 

[Spartanmack]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pe...ls-closed-on-election-day.html?outputType=amp

Where?s your proof?

Good job.

Where's my proof that signature matching isn't required or performed? Are you serious? You're giving Gulo a run for his money with this one.

And by the way, that article isn't proof of anything.

 

[elrod817]

Where's my proof that signature matching isn't required or performed? Are you serious? You're giving Gulo a run for his money with this one.

And by the way, that article isn't proof of anything.

It certainly is. Where?s your proof that anything nefarious happened? You have none.

 

[Gulo Blue]

it's a dumb question. Policies that leave an opportunity for fraud should be remedied - we shouldn't wait until we have proof that fraud occured, particularly if those policies make it really easy to commit fraud and extremely difficult to prove it.

There are plenty of policies out there that leave something to be desired. Maybe we should file more 'but what if' lawsuits.

 

[Michchamp]

There are plenty of policies out there that leave something to be desired. Maybe we should file more 'but what if' lawsuits.

Lawsuits don't grow on trees. and besides Trump is using the lawsuit money he collected from mack and tigermud to add more marble columns to Mar-A-Lago right now. priorities.

 

[Spartanmack]

Lawsuits don't grow on trees. and besides Trump is using the lawsuit money he collected from mack and tigermud to add more marble columns to Mar-A-Lago right now. priorities.

I don't make political donations, I've said that many times but good try.

 

[Spartanmack]

There are plenty of policies out there that leave something to be desired. Maybe we should file more 'but what if' lawsuits.

why do we have to file lawsuits? Why don't we just take appropriate measures to ensure the security and integrity of elections? Why is there so much opposition to that?

 

[Spartanmack]

It certainly is. Where?s your proof that anything nefarious happened? You have none.

I've been missing Bob's posts in the political forum for a while now. You're doing a good job filling in for him with these gems.

 

[Gulo Blue]

why do we have to file lawsuits? Why don't we just take appropriate measures to ensure the security and integrity of elections? Why is there so much opposition to that?

There's opposition when it impact who votes. Also support when it impacts who votes. While we may all hold genuine beliefs about the relative values of access and security, the loudest voices and the people driving the bus are mostly motivated by what's good for them in this particular moment. We just saw crowds on the same side chanting 'stop the count' and 'count the vote' in different states due to who was leading at the time.

 

[Michchamp]

I've been missing Bob's posts in the political forum for a while now. You're doing a good job filling in for him with these gems.

so you have no proof

 

[elrod817]

I've been missing Bob's posts in the political forum for a while now. You're doing a good job filling in for him with these gems.

So no proof? Congrats. I like what you resort to when lacking, however. Your insults are of no significance to me.

I still have faith in you though, maybe someday you?ll cut the insults and show proof of the more than 10,000 ballots received after Election Day along with PA election code in regard to signature matching. Until then...

 

[Spartanmack]

So no proof? Congrats. I like what you resort to when lacking, however. Your insults are of no significance to me.

I still have faith in you though, maybe someday you?ll cut the insults and show proof of the more than 10,000 ballots received after Election Day along with PA election code in regard to signature matching. Until then...

I have as much proof as you do - actually more because it's a fact that there are no signature matching requirements on absentee ballots in several battleground states. Something that you keep ignoring and hyper focusing on an unproven number of late votes in one state as "proof" that the election was secure.

As for proof of fraud or anything really, that's something you get (or you don't get) from an investigation. You don't need the proof first. for example, you don't first prove someone committed a crime in order to investigate them for the crime.

 

[Michchamp]

In Texas, the AG (who is himself under FBI investigation for using his office to solicit donations from a sleazy real estate developer) spent a whopping 22,000 man-hours of attorney work to uncover 16 cases of "voter fraud"...

"voter fraud" = giving the wrong address when voting, which isn't really a big deal. i mean, every adult should get one vote; so you didn't register in time, or gave your old address... who cares? this isn't a matter of stuffing a ballot box with multiple votes or something untoward that could change an election.

It seems like bullshit that all 16 cases they found were in Harris co. (ie Houston), and nowhere else in the state.

These assholes, man. imagine if they spent that time investigating real crime...

 

[Michchamp]

I have as much proof as you do - actually more because it's a fact that there are no signature matching requirements on absentee ballots in several battleground states. Something that you keep ignoring and hyper focusing on an unproven number of late votes in one state as "proof" that the election was secure.

As for proof of fraud or anything really, that's something you get (or you don't get) from an investigation. You don't need the proof first. for example, you don't first prove someone committed a crime in order to investigate them for the crime.

Even assuming your link is accurate and provides a full-context explanation of the issue here, it's still just a lack of a rule, not evidence that anything actually happened.

JFC, man

 

[elrod817]

I have as much proof as you do - actually more because it's a fact that there are no signature matching requirements on absentee ballots in several battleground states. Something that you keep ignoring and hyper focusing on an unproven number of late votes in one state as "proof" that the election was secure.

As for proof of fraud or anything really, that's something you get (or you don't get) from an investigation. You don't need the proof first. for example, you don't first prove someone committed a crime in order to investigate them for the crime.

I never said that PA required signature matching. And yes, the Department of State announcing that 10,000 votes were received after Election Day is proof. More proof than you have of anything. You are the one that brought Pennsylvania up and now you are upset that I?m focused on it?

I really do not care whether there is an investigation or not. I say go for it! However in your analogy you do need to have a crime in order to investigate one.