3 ms·

>they'd be 100% convinced the election was fair is if had Trump won. Maybe some would. But I'll tell you, if the democrats wanted it to look like they were run

• triceratops 6y ago
  > the measures they put in place to reduce the spread of the coronavirus were an absolutely unprecedented obstruction of the ability of observers to watch the process. The mask isn't supposed to over the eyes, only the mouth and nose. Do you have any concrete examples of "unprecedented obstruction" and their effects? Or evidence that it didn't affect both sides equally? These are just random insinuations. Also there's a bit of karmic justice here, because if Trump had taken the pandemic more seriously in the first place maybe there wouldn't have been all these restrictions. Or maybe he deliberately sabotaged the response so he could blame the restrictions for affecting the result later. (See? It's so easy to make up accusations). > An election observer should be able to see everything every election worker does as closely as the election worker sees it. Do observers generally get closer than 6ft to workers? Even under normal circumstances that's considered personal space. Also this would require a conspiracy among hundreds if not thousands of election workers to have any effect. Without a single person blowing the whistle. > How could anyone have known he was going to lose, The polls had him losing WI by a far larger margin so that was a hint. The WI race being so close, and the history of the Republican party's treachery in that state is more an indicator of a failed Trump steal. I don't believe that is the case either - it's more likely that it was bad polling. > Can you answer the actual question I asked? You haven't presented any facts - only vague accusations. What is there to answer? You're a concern troll. I'm done responding to you.
  • niyrjczs 6y ago
    The masks have nothing to do with it, the unprecedented restrictions were on the number of observers allowed and the requirement that they stay at least 6 feet (and in many cases much much more) away. Their effects are that, obviously, the observers cannot watch nearly as many poll workers, and cannot watch them as clearly. Observers in past cycles have had no problems approaching poll workers and inspecting the very materials they are working with, asking them to see a signature or an entry on the computer or whatever. In this election, at least in the polling locations where election fraud is alleged, observers (at least Republican ones) were prohibited from coming within 6 feet of workers, unless they already had an objection, which makes it impossible to see many of the things you might object to. It by no means requires conspiracy by hundreds. It requires action by hundreds, but they don't have to be acting together by any means. And keep in mind that these people are lifelong committed Democrats, who hate Trump viciously - no one could possibly deny how Democrats feel about Trump. No one trusted the polls this time since they were so wrong in 2016. Trump certainly didn't, and that's who you suggested knew he was going to lose. It's absolutely possible Trump tried to steal wisconsin and failed, possibly due to Democrats stealing it better. In either case, there is no basis upon which to claim Trump knew he was going to lose. The facts I present are clear and undisputed by anyone vaguely familiar with the political situation in this country. Democrats viciously hate Trump. Democrats run the election facilities in the major cities in the 6 contested states. Observers were obstructed from carrying out their duties in a meaningful capacity in those locations. They wanted to get Trump out by any means. They had the means to steal it. There is no publicly known smoking gun, but all publicly available facts point clearly and loudly to them having done it.