What is evidence?

@no1marauder said
Then it should be an easy matter for Trump to prove fraud this year as fraud was proven in Miami 1997.

Yet, he can't. Why do you think that is?

Fraud in Miami 1997 had less evidence than Trump. How did they get a trial?

@shavixmir said
Dead people did not vote.

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...

Dead people's votes get tossed all the time. You are a liar!

@mchill said
Sir--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. 🙂

no1 is not a lawyer. He just pretends to be one on RHP. He bluffed you!

@metal-brain said
Fraud in Miami 1997 had less evidence than Trump. How did they get a trial?

On what possible basis could you make such a preposterous claim?

@ponderable said
OK lets say: we now know that there is the possibility of fraud . your Point,. congratulations.

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 ...[text shortened]... minded Person, such as me, would assume that they would have brought Forward their strongest claims.

No! We know there is fraud. This is not in dispute. The only thing in dispute is whether or not the fraud is widespread.

When the news media said election fraud claims were unfounded it was a lie. Then they changed their story to "widespread" so it was no longer a lie.

Krebs is also changing his story. He is now changing his tune and saying "intentional". It does not change his original lie though. He never said "intentional" when he first started lying. No matter how many times he says intentional his original lie without that word is still recorded history you cannot erase.

@no1marauder said
On what possible basis could you make such a preposterous claim?

I posted the link/article that shows the reasons for it. It was common fraud that happens all of the time. The evidence was not remarkable at all.

All Miami 1997 proves is that weaker evidence was enough to get an entire vote redone than what Trump has.

@moonbus said
What 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?

See the following link (which pertains to NJ):

https://voteb ...[text shortened]... idence of vote fraud would look like: bags of bogus ballots left over which duplicated genuine ones.

I second MontyMoose's reply to your post.
A really well thought out and presented post.

Did you ever notice that when you hit the nail on the head, that your opponents never directly respond to you ?

@moonbus said
What 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?

See the following link (which pertains to NJ):

https://voteb ...[text shortened]... idence of vote fraud would look like: bags of bogus ballots left over which duplicated genuine ones.

no1 marauder once claimed the signatures of mail in ballots were on the envelope rather than the ballot in one of the states. If that is the case none of the ballots can be rechecked for signatures. I think you may be oversimplifying things.

You seem to be taking the position that election rigging that effects the outcome is impossible. Saddam Hussein held elections in Iraq. Are you claiming he won the elections fair and square because widespread election fraud is impossible?

@metal-brain said
no1 marauder once claimed the signatures of mail in ballots were on the envelope rather than the ballot in one of the states. If that is the case none of the ballots can be rechecked for signatures. I think you may be oversimplifying things.

You seem to be taking the position that election rigging that effects the outcome is impossible. Saddam Hussein held elections in ...[text shortened]... e you claiming he won the elections fair and square because widespread election fraud is impossible?

No, I do not claim that election fraud is impossible. I do, however, claim that it is not necessary to eliminate the impossible in order to certify the result. Just as it is not necessary to prove it impossible for a meteorite to hit my house in oder to know that the house is still standing.

@metal-brain said
no1 marauder once claimed the signatures of mail in ballots were on the envelope rather than the ballot in one of the states. If that is the case none of the ballots can be rechecked for signatures. I think you may be oversimplifying things.

You seem to be taking the position that election rigging that effects the outcome is impossible. Saddam Hussein held elections in ...[text shortened]... e you claiming he won the elections fair and square because widespread election fraud is impossible?

In some states/counties, the signature is on the ballot, whereas in others it is on the envelope. This is partly why it is so difficult to forge enough ballots to tip an election: the forgers would have to have had access to a large number of different types/formats of valid ballots from many different states/counties well enough in advance to duplicate them on printing presses. The forgers would also have to have had access to voter registration data bases in many states/counties to print voter IDs on all those different formats of forged ballots.

Didn't happen. How do we know? The fact of the matter is that there are not large numbers of ballots left over with duplicate voter IDs, which would be hard evidence of voter fraud.

So, to eliminate the possibility of duplicate ballots showing up, one would have to suppose that the forgers had intercepted the VALID ballots in order to eliminate the occurrence of duplicate voter IDs being noticed later on. In other words, the post office would have to have been infiltrated by literally thousands of corrupt workers steaming open millions of valid ballot envelops and sorting out the valid ones for the 'wrong' candidate which had voter IDs duplicating the voter IDs of forged ballots to be inserted in their place, but resealing the ballots which validly voted for the preferred candidate. So lots of envelops would arrive at counting centers which had obviously been steamed open or otherwise tampered with.

Didn't happen. How do we know? Well, how do we know a meteorite didn't hit your house last night? The house is still there. We don't have to eliminate every logically possible disaster in order to know that extremely improbable events did not occur.

The more you look at the nuts and bolts of conspiracy theories, the more they don't add up.

@metal-brain said
Fraud in Miami 1997 had less evidence than Trump. How did they get a trial?

Liar

@metal-brain said
I posted the link/article that shows the reasons for it. It was common fraud that happens all of the time. The evidence was not remarkable at all.

All Miami 1997 proves is that weaker evidence was enough to get an entire vote redone than what Trump has.

Liar Trump has no evidence whatsoever.

@metal-brain said
no1 marauder once claimed the signatures of mail in ballots were on the envelope rather than the ballot in one of the states. If that is the case none of the ballots can be rechecked for signatures. I think you may be oversimplifying things.

You seem to be taking the position that election rigging that effects the outcome is impossible. Saddam Hussein held elections in ...[text shortened]... e you claiming he won the elections fair and square because widespread election fraud is impossible?

I didn't "claim" it; I showed it was a fact.

The signature on the envelope is checked by representatives of both parties and then the ballot is taken out of the envelope to be counted and the envelope set aside. The reason for this is simple: so that the secrecy of one's vote is maintained.

IF there was an imbalance in the number of envelopes and the number of ballots, you'd have evidence of ................................ something. But there isn't, so you have evidence of nothing.

@metal-brain said
I posted the link/article that shows the reasons for it. It was common fraud that happens all of the time. The evidence was not remarkable at all.

All Miami 1997 proves is that weaker evidence was enough to get an entire vote redone than what Trump has.

You've shown no such thing. Your claim is complete and utter BS.

@moonbus said
No, I do not claim that election fraud is impossible. I do, however, claim that it is not necessary to eliminate the impossible in order to certify the result. Just as it is not necessary to prove it impossible for a meteorite to hit my house in oder to know that the house is still standing.

You don't think Saddam's Iraq certified vote results?