🇳🇱
@Zoohouse For a second there I thought this was the USA (which says a lot).. got real worried for a hot minute.
Fraud is extremely incentivized in elections, and the default position should be to audit and validate rather than trust.
OP's premise seemed to be that because the military cited election fraud, it should be dismissed out of hand as if the claim was a unicorn. Why should I assume there wasn't fraud? What makes these politicians special and unique from the rest of humanity to the point that questioning the premise is dismissed out of hand?
I find it odd and unsettling that election fraud is verboten as a topic.
> Fraud is extremely incentivized in elections, and the default position should be to audit and validate rather than trust.
There was auditing and validating, a hell of a lot, and it found no evidence. (in the USA)
> OP's premise seemed to be that because the military cited election fraud, it should be dismissed out of hand as if the claim was a unicorn.
The OP and me are different people. The OP made no claims of unicorns and only quoted an article.
Me, I was not the op and I was talking about the USA, which has nothing to do with the OP's post about the military nor did I mention the military.
I am also the one who brought up unicorns and I suggested the suggestion of voter fraud in the usa should be dismissed as if a unicorn because all the evidence that was considered and all the investigations that were done didnt show even the slightest hint of organized fraud, at best isolated incidents that were so minimal as to not even approach anything significant.
> There was auditing and validating, a hell of a lot, and it found no evidence. (in the USA)
Yes, the investigations were thorough, timely, and convincing:
Georgia judge, Stacey Abrams' sister, rules against voter purge before Senate runoffs
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/georgia-judge-stacey-abrams-sister-wont-recuse-election-suit-rules-against-voter-purge-before-runoffs
Judge rules Virginia's late election law changes for mail-in ballots were illegal
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-rules-virginia-s-late-election-law-changes-for-mail-in-ballots-were-illegal/ar-BB1d9atb
“We never had any presentation in court where we actually looked at the evidence. Most of the cases were thrown out for lack of standing, which is a procedural way of not actually hearing the question. There were several states in which the law was changed by the secretary of State and not the state legislature. To me, those are clearly unconstitutional, and I think there’s there’s still a chance that those actually do finally work their way up to the Supreme Court.” - Rand Paul
https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/24/watch-rand-paul-take-on-george-stephanopoulos-over-election-integrity-and-voter-fraud/
Georgia Republican Poll Watcher Discovered Recount Error Off By More Than 9,000 Votes For Biden
https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/18/georgia-republican-poll-watcher-discovered-recount-error-off-by-more-than-9000-votes-for-biden/
This, is an excellent rundown of the quite unbelievable elements of this election:
https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/17/if-americans-can-no-longer-trust-our-elections-were-in-big-trouble/
Just because CNN doesn't talk about it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
You can trust them. I don't.
This response shows you havent done any research regarding the links you posted or evidence and are literally just looking on google for anything that sounds like it vaguely supports your position.. The first link being the most damning in that regard.
> Georgia judge, Stacey Abrams' sister, rules against voter purge before Senate runoffs
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/georgia-judge-stacey-abrams-sister-wont-recuse-election-suit-rules-against-voter-purge-before-runoffs
Not even related to the presidential election we are talking about. This is literally about an entirely different election that took place after electing local state officials (senators). No relationship in any way to the presidential election being discussed.
> Judge rules Virginia's late election law changes for mail-in ballots were illegal
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-rules-virginia-s-late-election-law-changes-for-mail-in-ballots-were-illegal/ar-BB1d9atb
This one of course is also complete nonsense and I even addressed it just a few days ago.
It only deemed specifically that letters that arrived throughthe mail that expiernced a technical error where the postmark did not print properly onto the letter and was not legible or absent could not be counted.
While it is perfectly reasonable that such a law might be deemed illegal anyone doing any actual objective research would have quickly discovered this accounts for virtually 0 actual cases. The number of letters that are accidentally missing a post mark are so unbelievably low that its laughable to even bring this up as a significant influence on election outcomes.
> “We never had any presentation in court where we actually looked at the evidence. Most of the cases were thrown out for lack of standing, which is a procedural way of not actually hearing the question. There were several states in which the law was changed by the secretary of State and not the state legislature. To me, those are clearly unconstitutional, and I think there’s there’s still a chance that those actually do finally work their way up to the Supreme Court.” - Rand Paul
A quote from a republican politician hardly counts as credible evidence, but lets consider this shall we.
It is, of course and no suprise both a complete lie and a fiction.. lets look at the actual numbers shall we:
There are actually quite a few cases that were heard, of course, only the ones that actually had evidence, court cases can and will be dropped if no evidence is provided to have the case proceed.
In total 6 cases across different states were held in full, and a rulling was passed, all 12 failed to succeed. 2 trials are still on going but were not dropped and made it to a full trial that is still in progress, and 6 trials were heard, and failed to succeed but has been appealed and the appeal is on going.
Sounds like a much bigger number than 0.
> Georgia Republican Poll Watcher Discovered Recount Error Off By More Than 9,000 Votes For Biden
https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/18/georgia-republican-poll-watcher-discovered-recount-error-off-by-more-than-9000-votes-for-biden/
Again complete lack of research on your part, this one actually shows the **opposite** of your claim. This error was caught during the normal process used to verify vote integrity and **not** due to any prompting or claim of voter fraud.
Sometimes human error occurs, thats why the system double and triple checks most votes and when an error is found it is corrected. This is exactly the case here, during the **normal** verification process they found one bin was mislabeled, it was corrected and when the final votes were announced it had already included this correct.
> This, is an excellent rundown of the quite unbelievable elements of this election:
No its not, its a horrific one, just like every single one of your links above were trivially debunked with even a moments research.. picking the things that agree with you from very obviously biased news sources just means you have a bunch of lies, a long list of lies is still lies.
> Just because CNN doesn't talk about it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I agree, CNN is shit and they lie their asses off and bias everything they report for the left..CNN being biased and shit doesnt make your biased shit news source and less bias or shit.
i posted an actual picture of you doing research on this post for reference.
Yes they did, I said as much in my reply and explained why its still a nonsense argument.
It is when you are arguing election fraud and the law in question effected something like 10 votes in total, at most. So while it may have been an injust law (and was corrected) it had virtually no bearing of any kind on the topic of the presidential election.
Ok buddy, a law that was a shitty choice for a law that resulted in all of 10 votes being counted that shouldnt have in a single state is totally valid evidence that massive voter fraud took place and Trump really won.... totally valid, I just moved the goal posts
OUCH!!! oh shit I just sprained my eyes when I rolled them a bit too hard. Gonna be sore for days.
then make your case, saying a thing is so providing no specific examples or evidence is again, just a waste of everyone's time, including yours. If thats your opinion and you wish to demonstrate it, be specific, list the cases and your argument for why they demonstrate your point.
Lacking that its just noise. If you present me with a case that I havent actually read that has any notable bearing on the outcome of the presidential election I'd be happy to read the court documents and consider your point. But right now your just claiming its so and providing nothing to back that up.
Most of these lawsuits were asking for access to the evidence, or permission to investigate: orders to prevent the erasure of voting machine logs, or the destruction of paper ballots or envelopes. Permission to conduct independent audits. They couldn't logically present evidence that they were seeking to document, that's not how causality works.
I never claimed that there was fraud sufficient to change the outcome of the election, though what a strange standard to apply. One would imagine all election irregularities, however small, should be investigated throughly and prosecuted if appropriate.
biden's jd is throwing memesters in prison for 2016 joke tweets, yet election workers denying access to lawful observers is brushed under the rug. Election officials destroying evidence in contravention of a court order gets narry a second glance. Election board members having their family's lives threatened to certify suspect results under the dictionary definition of duress gets no scrutiny.
You can ignore these questions (and many more) if you wish, but it doesn't make them less relevant or more answered.
> You're asking me to prove a negative
No I'm not, I didnt ask you to prove anything. You made specific claims:
> many states had election laws illegally overruled by AGs and judges without going through the constitutionally prescribed legislative process.
Asking you to show the evidence for what you specifically just claimed were already "facts" (thus according to you provably true) is not in any way asing you to prove a negative.
Of the election changes documented at ballotpedia (see below), I’ve tried to only note those related to the general election, not primaries or filing requirements, and indicated the authorizing body or office for the change. I’ve tried to exclude any changes that were reversed by a higher court, or were ratified by the legislature. even with these exclusions, the majority of states had some rules of the 2020 election dictated by a body other than the legislature.
Further details and source links at: https://ballotpedia.org/Changes_to_election_dates,_procedures,_and_administration_in_response_to_the_coronavirus_(COVID-19)_pandemic,_2020
Your claim was not that there were changes made to the election. You specifically said:
>election laws illegally overruled by AGs and judges
Of that list, where is the list of the ones that were deemed illegal by a judge as you claimed?
@freemo @Atlas @icedquinn If a judge or official is changing the election rules, they are necessarily changing them for something, which presumably would be a law duly passed by the legislature as required by the US constitution….Thus “overruling” the constitutionally promulgated election laws.
Wait what, so many things wrong here... for starts judges do not only make choices based on the constitution, in fact most of their rulings arent consitutional in nature.. but all that aside.. lets take a step back..
The chart you added to your post isnt even at the link you posted. where is the source of the chart and the background data that formed it, let me start by looking there and going through it case by case.
@freemo @Atlas @icedquinn Yes, I compiled the chart myself from the source data linked, and shared some of my method in the post with the chart. Yes, the judges rulings were extra-constitutional. The case you are laughing about establishes is important because it establishes exactly that precedent.
> whereas a red ‘X’ indicates a change to rules by a body other than the legislature, thus not in accordance with the US constitution.
That statement is false, at least in some cases. For example I notice you have court rulings (court order) as red marks. Courts are absolutely allowed make changes to effectively (key word) change laws. For example a court can deem a law unconstitutional as well as deem a practice need to be carried out due to constitutionality.
The whole point of our system is checks and balances so that no one branch has full control and dominion over the law.
so before we even get into the specific cases it seems your axiom is incorrect.
Now where do you have your point by point for each check mark on that list.. i want to see where each green or red mark is associated to a specific case that I can review. Where is the citation for each mark to review?
Ahh ok, if that is 100% of your source for the diagram I will just go through that link by link and see what my impressions are, give me a day or two, thanks.
@anonymoose Just so I'm clear on your point while reading through this, you are basically trying to claim that changes were made through means other than the state's legislature (state congress of some sort usually) but through other means and thus is, unconstitutional... but you are **not** saying it was a conspiracy to rig an election against Trump, or that Trump won, or even that the count was wrong.. Just that changed that were made to accommodate covid were done unconstitutional because they were directly voted on by the state legislature, and you think that needs to be fixed obviously, and then what, have another vote? Partly not following where your going with it beyond that.
@freemo @Atlas @icedquinn A green denotes a legislative change to election rules, which is constitutional, whereas a red ‘X’ indicates a change to rules by a body other than the legislature, thus not in accordance with the US constitution.