4 ms·

It's a martyr complex to ask for more and more and more audits after many have been done, all according to law. You do want to follow the law, right? There wer

It's a martyr complex to ask for more and more and more audits after many have been done, all according to law. You do want to follow the law, right? There were all audits requested as done by law, some states had multiple recounts done, all with the same result. At some point asking for more and more recounts when you don't like the original several becomes ridiculous. These audits were done in many cases by lifetime Republicans. Trump had 60+ opportunities to present fraud in court. He did not provide actual fraud in any single case, this he lost them all. He presented nonsense and no evidence and hearsay and handwaving, which is why every judge, even Trump appointed judges told him so. In PA, Trump appointed federal judge even dismissed the case with prejudice it was so ridiculous, and now in multiple states the lawyers presenting those cases without evidence are facing legal consequences. And, no matter how or what happened, there is also a legal time window to resolve it in. That window is over. There is zero legal method to do so now - consider the statute of limitation has passed. At some point you become an adult and realize this is the law. Claiming to be the law and order party should give you some respect for the law, but apparently it does not. So - do you now want to no longer follow the law when it doesn't suit you?

dukeofdoom 6y ago
I'm not an american, so I only care tangentially. But the election was shady as F. Over 1000 sworn affidavits from witnesses. Video evidence of votes being pulled out in middle of the night, from under tables and scanned multiple times while observers told to go home, crazy one sided spikes. and so on. But lets say I take every plausible explanation they came up with at face value. What exactly is the point of voting in your state running legit by the book fraud proof elections, if another state isn't going to verify signatures to make sure there are no fraudulent ballots? Even if your legitimate election state is won, the unsecure election state will nullify your state with their electoral count. Specially if the state has more electors than your state. Because the Supreme Court said it doesn't matter. You are also making appeals to law, which is fallacy because all kinds of Rogue states have laws too that they follow.
- aw1621107 6y ago
  > Over 1000 sworn affidavits from witnesses. The number of affidavits is a rather meaningless number. The quality of the affidavits is much more important, and those have been found much less impressive by courts. > What exactly is the point of voting in your state running legit by the book fraud proof elections, if another state isn't going to verify signatures to make sure there are no fraudulent ballots? If that other state's laws don't allow signature matching or make it optional, then that's their prerogative; states choose how to run their elections, after all. It doesn't mean you have to be happy with their choice, by any means, but it's still their choice. > Even if your legitimate election state is won, the unsecure election state will nullify your state with their electoral count. How do electoral votes from one state "nullify" electoral votes from another? One state's electoral votes will get counted regardless of what other states do. > Because the Supreme Court said it doesn't matter. The US Constitution says states get to choose how their elections are run. If one state doesn't like how another state runs their election? Too bad.
- ChrisLomont 6y ago
  >if another state isn't going to verify signatures to make sure there are no fraudulent ballots Because states don't have that right, in the same way France cannot reject an election in the UK. States are independent in this sense. Next - all this claim of fraud is simply ignorant nonsense. Every state has public records of who voted. Every election lots of govt agencies and research groups sample these to find this claimed fraud ignorant people keep claiming. Trump and co immediately went through these and found no fraud - how do you know this? Because immediately they started releasing names of a few they claimed were fraudulent votes, such as claiming a voter was dead but voted, and in each case the media showed the Trump team the claim was wrong - there was another with the same name, or the voter voted then died, etc. They got these names from looking at the lists of who actually voted and trying to find discrepancies. They could not. They likely even polled people on phones or email or whatever, and again found none. Otherwise they would have reported that statistical sampling shows the claimed outcome does not match statistical samples. This would be proof, easy enough to demonstrate, and irrefutable. But it didn't exist. So, after team Trump didn't find any fraudulent votes from sampling, which is the correct and the most reliable way to demonstrate fraud, they turned to the smoke and mirrors claims, which you keep repeating. Now, if you want to continue those claims, why not simply demonstrate fraud from the state voter lists? It's pure math that you can sample these, then poll people you sample, and see if there was fraud. There was not enough fraud to remote affect the election. This is the proof, and it was tried (and is still being studied by research teams like after each and every election). As a final point - Trump raised around $200M on the back of his fraud claims, supposedly to help fight legal cases, but the money went in to Trump pockets instead of cases. If he thought there was really fraud, why didn't he use this money for the cases? Because he knew it was a lie, but one that would raise money for him.

dukeofdoom 6y ago

I'm not an american, so I only care tangentially. But the election was shady as F. Over 1000 sworn affidavits from witnesses. Video evidence of votes being pulled out in middle of the night, from under tables and scanned multiple times while observers told to go home, crazy one sided spikes. and so on. But lets say I take every plausible explanation they came up with at face value. What exactly is the point of voting in your state running legit by the book fraud proof elections, if another state isn't going to verify signatures to make sure there are no fraudulent ballots? Even if your legitimate election state is won, the unsecure election state will nullify your state with their electoral count. Specially if the state has more electors than your state. Because the Supreme Court said it doesn't matter. You are also making appeals to law, which is fallacy because all kinds of Rogue states have laws too that they follow.

aw1621107 6y ago
> Over 1000 sworn affidavits from witnesses. The number of affidavits is a rather meaningless number. The quality of the affidavits is much more important, and those have been found much less impressive by courts. > What exactly is the point of voting in your state running legit by the book fraud proof elections, if another state isn't going to verify signatures to make sure there are no fraudulent ballots? If that other state's laws don't allow signature matching or make it optional, then that's their prerogative; states choose how to run their elections, after all. It doesn't mean you have to be happy with their choice, by any means, but it's still their choice. > Even if your legitimate election state is won, the unsecure election state will nullify your state with their electoral count. How do electoral votes from one state "nullify" electoral votes from another? One state's electoral votes will get counted regardless of what other states do. > Because the Supreme Court said it doesn't matter. The US Constitution says states get to choose how their elections are run. If one state doesn't like how another state runs their election? Too bad.
ChrisLomont 6y ago
>if another state isn't going to verify signatures to make sure there are no fraudulent ballots Because states don't have that right, in the same way France cannot reject an election in the UK. States are independent in this sense. Next - all this claim of fraud is simply ignorant nonsense. Every state has public records of who voted. Every election lots of govt agencies and research groups sample these to find this claimed fraud ignorant people keep claiming. Trump and co immediately went through these and found no fraud - how do you know this? Because immediately they started releasing names of a few they claimed were fraudulent votes, such as claiming a voter was dead but voted, and in each case the media showed the Trump team the claim was wrong - there was another with the same name, or the voter voted then died, etc. They got these names from looking at the lists of who actually voted and trying to find discrepancies. They could not. They likely even polled people on phones or email or whatever, and again found none. Otherwise they would have reported that statistical sampling shows the claimed outcome does not match statistical samples. This would be proof, easy enough to demonstrate, and irrefutable. But it didn't exist. So, after team Trump didn't find any fraudulent votes from sampling, which is the correct and the most reliable way to demonstrate fraud, they turned to the smoke and mirrors claims, which you keep repeating. Now, if you want to continue those claims, why not simply demonstrate fraud from the state voter lists? It's pure math that you can sample these, then poll people you sample, and see if there was fraud. There was not enough fraud to remote affect the election. This is the proof, and it was tried (and is still being studied by research teams like after each and every election). As a final point - Trump raised around $200M on the back of his fraud claims, supposedly to help fight legal cases, but the money went in to Trump pockets instead of cases. If he thought there was really fraud, why didn't he use this money for the cases? Because he knew it was a lie, but one that would raise money for him.