02 Dec 20
@no1marauder saidYes it did. It proves absentee votes are vulnerable to fraud. Not that I have not already proven that to you in another way.
No, it doesn't confirm anything Trump was saying.
It confirms there was some illegal misconduct in a local election 23 years ago regarding absentee ballots. Sorry, that isn't evidence regarding this election.
02 Dec 20
@Metal-Brain:
"...biased person like sonhouse would not be inclined to accept it..."
Irrelevant. If sonhouse accepts what is presented or no is not important. What matters is how election officials, AG's, and courts view the evidence. So far those people and agencies have stated/ruled there is not widespread fraud.
"...videotape in a cave in Afghanistan..."
Pure fantasy. Let's stick with evidence that the Trump team has presented. So far, that has been lacking in persuasion in court rulings.
"...How is he supposed to find evidence?..."
That is a good question. Trump has the power of the White House at his call. Trump has high powered lawyers. Trump has Republicans in state and local positions of the electoral process. But, so far, no one has presented evidence of wide spread fraud that holds up under examination. The highest law enforcement official in the US, AG Barr, stated today there was no evidence of election fraud.
"...What is evidence?..."
There are legal definitions of evidence. What can be presented and what cannot be presented (research 'hearsay' ) has been established. If the Trump team wishes to change the results on any votes, they must present evidence within that legal framework.
"...What is good enough for a recount?..."
Individual states have rules for mandatory recounts and recounts where one party pays for the recount. It is often when the totals for two candidates are within 1% or less. This seems fair as it gives the losing candidate a chance in a close election, but prevents someone who loses 70%-30% from dragging out the result.
"...If Trump pays for the recount why would anybody object?..."
Because then anyone with enough money can hold up the will of the majority of the people. The state of Georgia has had the election and now 2 recounts. There are deadlines for certification of results, appointing of elector slates, and the meeting of the Electoral College.
"...Should evidence be required when a recount hurts nobody?..."
Again, there are state election regulations and laws that govern this question. Sometimes the recount is automatic. Other times the losing side has to pay. If, as the Trump team has done, the losing side asks a court to step in, then, yes, evidence must be presented.
02 Dec 20
@metal-brain saidThen it should be an easy matter for Trump to prove fraud this year as fraud was proven in Miami 1997.
Yes it did. It proves absentee votes are vulnerable to fraud. Not that I have not already proven that to you in another way.
Yet, he can't. Why do you think that is?
@metal-brain saidIs this in the same vein that you guys questioned the concept of ‘Truth’ and came up with the idea of ‘Alternative Facts’?
What is proof?
If I can prove votes were counted from dead people is that enough? Does it have to be a lot of dead people? What is the criteria?
It’s not working, your just coming across as having learning difficulties which is very disrespectful to people at the sharp end of that condition.
Either you accept the concept of evidence being required for an assertion to become a statement of fact or you don’t. As a die hard conspiracy theorist concepts like truth and evidence are an anathema to you.
If you and trump want to challenge the election result you need to:-
A define what would constitute evidence of electoral fraud.
B. Find that evidence and present it.
Please note that a fragile ego and the temperament of a 5 yr old do not constitute evidence of electoral fraud.
02 Dec 20
@metal-brain saidYour Points:
If Trump had his lawyers make a case for evidence a partisan biased person like sonhouse would not be inclined to accept it no matter how strong the indicators are.
Do you expect Trump to find a videotape in a cave in Afghanistan with people bragging about how they rigged our election? Evidence doesn't just fall into a guy's lap. How is he supposed to find evidence?
...[text shortened]... downside to getting a more accurate count. Should evidence be required when a recount hurts nobody?
* it is of no consequence if sonhouse would or would not accept evidense. A court has to be statisfied.
* It is not the burden of anyone else than a Person claiming something to provide evidence. The evidence that the People who are responsibel are statisfied that the elections have been fair is the certification they gave.So you have thousands of those certifucate (one per US County), so that is the evidence that is provided for a fair election.
02 Dec 20
@metal-brain saidHe did. You look like a fool here.
If you cannot answer my question just say so. I thought maybe you read it first.
02 Dec 20
@metal-brain saidYou know that you write About a Statement in one couty About 23 years ago?
Your example doesn't exactly give a favorable view of absentee votes. Here is an excerpt from the link below:
"Judge Wilson's ruling was a sweeping indictment of the absentee ballot system, which last month was the subject of a state grand jury report that found it riddled with flaws. The panel's finding included the casting of ballots in the name of dead people and ma ...[text shortened]... d?
I didn't see any evidence of widespread fraud in Miami-Dade County. How did they get a trial?
This has bnothing to do with the Trump Claims. Evidently enough evidence had been provided then for the ruling. If Trump was Right there would be enough evidence for Judges (apointed by Trump himself) not find the cases "withot Merit"
02 Dec 20
@metal-brain saidOK lets say: we now know that there is the possibility of fraud . your Point,. congratulations.
Yes it did. It proves absentee votes are vulnerable to fraud. Not that I have not already proven that to you in another way.
Now we come to the Question: has it happened? Feel free to provide evidence, and please do go to the Courts. Even if you would convince me, Nothing would be gaines. You have to convince a Judge. With all the money and effort that went into fighting the elction results a simple minded Person, such as me, would assume that they would have brought Forward their strongest claims.
@metal-brain saidWhat would evidence of vote fraud actually look like? Trump has stated more than once that mail-in ballots could be forged. To tip an election, several hundred thousand ballots would have to be forged and distributed to critically close counties and districts. So, what does a mail-in ballot actually look like?
I keep hearing how Trump has no evidence of widespread voter fraud. What would skeptics of Trump's election fraud claims accept as evidence?
Define this evidence. Give me an example of evidence so you cannot change the criteria and say he didn't prove enough. I suspect any evidence would be called not evidence by a Biden supporter.
See the following link (which pertains to NJ):
https://votebymailnj.org/vbm-hub-for-voters/what-a-mail-in-ballot-looks-like/
The gist of it is this: every country does it differently for every election. So, to tip an election, several hundred thousand ballots would have to be printed up in different formats, appropriate for each critical county. And each forged ballot would have too look real enough to fool electronic counting machines and human inspectors. Now, that's just the blank form.
What about the detail? Each valid ballot has a unique voter ID printed on it, in text and bar code. How you gonna forge that several hundred thousand times? You'd have to have access to the voter registration data base, just for starters.
Next: when the forged ballots are sent in, they must be signed. So, the forgers are going to need a small army of people faking signatures. Did you ever try to fake a signature and not make it look a lot like your own handwriting? It's not as easy as it might seem. Now try to image this: a hundred forgers are seated in a room somewhere forging signatures on faked ballots, jotting off fake signatures hour after hour after hour. And every one is supposed to be unique. It's a no-brainer that most of the faked signatures are going to look a lot alike, and all in the same ink. Red flag right there.
Next: the forged ballots are then posted. They arrive on time and are counted. But what about the real ballots? If they too were sent in an arrived on time, there'd be duplicated voter IDs. Again red flag. Alternatively, suppose the real voter voted in person; again red flag, duplicate vote would be indicated.
So, what would the evidence look like? Some counties would have bag loads of forged ballots with faked signatures many of which looked a lot alike, in identical ink, which duplicated genuine ballots or genuine in-person votes. That's what evidence of vote fraud would look like: bags of bogus ballots left over which duplicated genuine ones.
@metal-brain saidDead people did not vote.
What is proof?
If I can prove votes were counted from dead people is that enough? Does it have to be a lot of dead people? What is the criteria?
I swear to God, sometimes you ooze moronity.
Voting FFing zombies... what the hell do you think the undead get up to?
Bloody terrible horrible film... watch out! The undea... oh, they’re just off to vote...
And anyways, why shouldn’t the undead be allowed to vote? Many trump supporters seem to be brain dead. Surely that’s nearly the definition...
@montymoose saidThe great weakness of all conspiracy theories is that they take a few disjointed facts and fill in the gaps with non-facts. But when you look at the nuts and bolts in the gaps, the theory falls apart.
@moonbus
Excellent post. Thank you digging down into the nuts and bolts of this question.
Forging even one ballot is no easy task, much less enough ballots to tip an election. Hundreds of thousands of forged ballots would be immediately obvious when you stop to think about the "nuts and bolts."
Even supposing someone had gotten that far in the planning stage, it is highly improbable that it could have been kept silent. Some whistleblower would have exposed it before that number of forgeries had actually been dumped into the postal system.
But really, the thing Trump has never gotten his mind round is that the people who voted against him did not need to cheat -- they just had to show up, that's all.
02 Dec 20
@metal-brain saidSir--If I may suggest. You're arguing legal issues with a lawyer. He really does know what he's talking about. You would do well to stop arguing, and take what he says pretty seriously. 🙂
Yes it did. It proves absentee votes are vulnerable to fraud. Not that I have not already proven that to you in another way.
02 Dec 20
@metal-brain saidApparently, proof of a "perfect phone call" with a Ukrainian president wasn't enough to get Trump removed from office.
I keep hearing how Trump has no evidence of widespread voter fraud. What would skeptics of Trump's election fraud claims accept as evidence?
Define this evidence. Give me an example of evidence so you cannot change the criteria and say he didn't prove enough. I suspect any evidence would be called not evidence by a Biden supporter.
And that was, by a substantial margin, stronger than the drivel the Trump campaign team is trying pass through the court system.
They do seem to be successful feeding it to FOX Propaganda and the Trump base.
There's no accounting for stupidity, is there ? 🤔